If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.- Mark Twain, 1894

Who is Arthur Scheuerman?

He is a retired battalion commander from the Fire Dept. of New York and he is a member of Scholars for truth and justice, but he is also involved with the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY’s WORLD TRADE CENTER INVESTIGATION

WTC’s Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NY-NJ codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was not hit by any planes but had some damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was cleared. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse.

Now, If this article looks familiar you have to look no further than the comments on
SuzieQ’s blog, where the above article was copied and pasted in it’s entirety.

The NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY is a non-regulatory federal agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST’s mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. This is the agency that Bu$hco has set up to do the World Trade Center Investigation, which they have been working on for three years with no final report forthcoming to date.

On March 12, 2002, in “Civil Engineer News” this analysis of the cause of the collapse of the WTC Towers & Possible lessons learned to improve high-rise building life safety was done by Arthur Scheuerman, Battalion Chief FDNY (Retired), Former Deputy Chief Instructor Nassau County Fire Training Academy and high-rise Fire Safety Director NYC.

On March 12, 2002, in “Civil Engineer News” an analysis of the cause of the collapse of the WTC Towers & Possible lessons learned to improve high-rise building life safety was done by Arthur Scheuerman, Battalion Chief FDNY (Retired), Former Deputy Chief Instructor Nassau County Fire Training Academy and high-rise Fire Safety Director NYC.

I look forward to more comments in the future from you Arthur. There are so many things to discuss and so little time.

Like this:

Related

361 Responses

“This type of flat floor collapse reminds me of bathroom floor failures in old six story apartment buildings. These localized, progressive collapses were so common, in the Bronx that we would try to stay out of bathrooms during apartment fires. One firefighter reported riding down such a bathroom floor collapse and said it felt like being in an elevator which momentarily stopped at each floor, as each bathroom floor hit the one below and broke the joists.”

This is funny, but hardly pertains to a building that collapsed at freefall speed?

He is a member of scholars for truth and justice which promotes the view that the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition, but he himself promotes the view that fire caused the collapse.

There is a lot of information to sort out on this subject, but it appears that Scheuerman’s book is part of the smoke screen of the NIST.
NIST has cherry picked information to formulate their investigation.

Dr. James Quintier of the University of maryland is involved in the NIST investigation. He is used as reference in Scheuerman’s book. Quintiere questions parts of the NIST investigation and recommends new objectives.

I am not a member of NIST but have attended many of their meetings and have made some public comments. I have disagreed with many of their conclusions and by doing so have have in some ways guided their analysis. I am all for scholars for truth and justice but by their jumping to the conclusion that explosives were used to collapse the buildings, many problems are too easily explained. This conclusion also precludes many building code changes which are critically needed and will not be explored if everyone believes the buildings were subjected to controlled demolition . Scholars for Truth and Justice should have an open mind and explore all the possible mechanisms for collapse.

Thanks for your comments. There is a lot of infomation on this subject and I would like to be objective in seeking answers to what happened on that day. The AIA (American Institute for Architects) is 75,000 members strong, and on their site mentioned that they welcomed comments from their members about their opinions on the subject. What they have to say would be pertinent information, but I don’t see any links to this on the site. If I might ask, what are your opinions on Architects and Engineers for 911 truth?

Quote: “This conclusion also precludes many building code changes which are critically needed and will not be explored if everyone believes the buildings were subjected to controlled demolition . ”

This is a blog for truth and justice, and seeks only that. My objective is to seek the whole truth of the matter because what happened is far more important than building code changes on what could possibly be false information…G:

Firefighters are experts at determining causes for Fires and first impressions at the scene are very important.

That’s why they are used in arson investigations with success.

If you can’t believe a firefighter dying from toxic materials who was at the 9/11 scene then who can you believe ?

That’s why I truly believe the ‘9/11 event’ has to be reinvestigated completely and with due political neutrality this time.

We must also flush out the Republican AND Democrat use of the 9/11 event as a political tool to pass Orwellian laws that have brought our nation to this point where the dissenting voices are being silenced through laws.

Until such time, we will be unrelenting in the persuit of the truth about 9/11.

Unfortunately, there are not only problems with the collapse, I mean, disintegration of the Twin Towers, but what happened in Shanksville Pensylvania, which may or may not have been flight 93 and the plane, or whatever it was which flew almost at ground level (something which a Boeinh could not have done) into the Pentagon, vaporising in the process.

The collapse of WTC 7 is, for me, the smoking gun of 9/11. Strange that not two, but three high-rise steel buildings should collapse at free-fall speed symetrically into their own footprints, and this due, we are told, to fire, the only instance of this happening to high-rise buildings in the history of modern civilization, and all in the same day.

One of the reasons these people reject the government’s conspiracy theory is that, if they were to accept the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, they would need to affirm magical beliefs.

A few examples:

The Twin Towers came straight down, which means that each building’s 287 steel columns all had to fail simultaneously; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

At the onset of each tower’s collapse, steel beams were ejected out as far as 600 feet; to believe that these horizontal ejections could be explained by gravitational energy, which is vertical, is to believe in magic.

Virtually all of the concrete in the towers was pulverized into extremely fine dust particles; to believe that fire plus gravity could have done this is to believe in magic.

WTC 7 and the towers came down at virtually free-fall speed, meaning that the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, provided no resistance to the upper floors; to believe this could happen without explosives is to believe in magic.

Pools of molten metal were found under each building. Because steel does not begin to melt until it reaches about 1,540°C and yet the fires could not have gotten over 1000°C, to accept the fire theory is to believe in magic.

Monbiot, regarding the 9/11 truth movement’s conspiracy theory as a wrong-headed distraction, fails to see that the obviously false and truly distracting conspiracy theory is the official 9/11 myth, which has been used to justify imperial wars and increased militarism, thereby distracting attention from global apartheid and the ecological crisis. We focus on the 9/11 myth because, until it is exposed, getting our governments to focus wholeheartedly on the truly urgent issues of our time will be impossible.

The belief that the Towers came straight down is eroneous. Both Towers first tilted because the outside columns on one side of each tower failed first from the deflected floors pulling in these walls. Tower 1 tilted to the south because the long span floors were on this side and tower 2 tilted to the east for the same reason. The pictures of the walls bowing inward are shown in my book.

“Steel beams ejected 600 feet.” First of all these werent beams they were the exterior columns which were pushed out by the disintegrating top of the building just like a bannana being pealed.

“Pulverized concrete” In my book I explain how defective concrete could have been produced by adding too much water or air to the concrete. Why? Spreading and floating the vast area floors “in one pour”, “without the use of shores” as recommended by the engineers designing the Towers would have quickly exhausted the workers making such shortcuts very likely.

“Pools of metal.” The fires were burning for weeks and there must have been some areas that got very hot from air finding voids deep within the pile and comming up from the bottom. The metal could have been aluminum which melts at a lower temperature than steel.It could also have been other metals. I didn’t see any chemical analysis of the material from these pools.

“WTC 7 free fall speed.” The video used to time the collapse was cut off in the beginning. The east penthouse roof caved in first indicating some interior key columns failing. This roof collapse was removed from the video. 5 seconds later the west penthouse roof caved in indicating total core column failure. The core failure allowed the attached floors to pull-in the exterior columns breaking them on a lower floor out of camera view. The only thing that fell at ‘free fall’ speed was the exterior walls which had belt trusses which held them together so one side did not fall before the other.

The belief that the Towers came straight down is eroneous. Both Towers first tilted because the outside columns on one side of each tower failed first from the deflected floors pulling in these walls. Tower 1 tilted to the south because the long span truss floors were on this side and tower 2 tilted to the east for the same reason. The pictures of the walls bowing inward are shown in my book.

“Steel beams ejected 600 feet.” First of all these weren’t beams they were the exterior columns which were pushed out by the disintegrating top of the building just like a bannana being pealed.

“Pulverized concrete” In my book I explain how defective concrete could have been produced by adding too much water or air to the concrete. Why? Spreading and floating the vast area floors “in one pour”, “without the use of shores” as recommended by the engineers designing the Towers would have quickly exhausted the workers making such shortcuts very likely.

“Pools of metal.” The fires were burning for weeks and there must have been some areas that got very hot from air finding voids deep within the pile and comming up from the bottom. The metal could have been aluminum which melts at a lower temperature than steel.It could also have been other metals. I didn’t see any chemical analysis of the material from these pools.

“WTC 7 free fall speed.” The video used to time the collapse was cut off in the beginning. The east penthouse roof caved in first indicating some interior key columns failing. This roof collapse was removed from the video. 5 seconds later the west penthouse roof caved in indicating total core column failure. The core failure allowed the attached floors to pull-in the exterior columns breaking them on a lower floor out of camera view. The only thing that fell at ‘free fall’ speed was the exterior walls which had belt trusses which held them together so one side did not fall before the other.

“Multipal explosions.” In the beginning about 5 minutes after the plane hit there were explosions reported in the lobby and elevator doors blown out. I can only say that this could have been from jet fuel leaking down through the elevator shafts and suddenly ignited possibly by an elevator motor or switch spark.

This type of fuel air explosion could have been happening in many areas since the impact of the planes could have opened up many seams in the walls and floors allowing any jet fuel to flow down through the building.

The repetive “boom,boom, boom” was from the floors impacting each other as the top building section came down after the columns buckled from collapsing bar joist floor trusses.

You had the “explosions” from the planes impacting the buildings and the fireballs.

You could have have had back draft “explosions” which are more frequent at fires containing flamable material.

When Tower 2 collapsed the people in Tower 1 herd explosions but didn’t know what it was from because they couldn’t see the building.

Thanks for replying to my comment, Arthur. It’s late here in the UK and I am unable to reply to your comment at the moment.

For the timebeing, I will say that this is not just about the collapse of the twin towers, but what happened to flight 93 and whatever it was which flew into the Pentagon.

And it does seem a remarkable coincidence, however clever your explanations for what happened to the twin towers and WTC7, that for the only time in the history of modern civilzation, not two, but threee high rise buildings collapsed at free fall speed into their own footprints.

I was just reading some comments from the nistreview.org artical of July 27, 2005 by James Quintiere where he says that “I do not believe that NSIT has presented a convincing argument for their collapse hypotheses for WTC 1 and 2”. He also says in the artical that “the NSIT held no hearings to ascertain testimony, used no subpoenas, and enlisted no investigative team to gather information”. He is critical of many aspects of the investigastion and has recommendations for clarity in many areas.

When discussing the destruction of WTC 1 an WTC 2, there are certain background articles which I believe are essential.

I appreciate the opportunity to post here and will abide by the rules.

The following article is from a web site which has Jim Hoffman as a major contributor. Although I have serious concerns with some of Hoffman’s research and contentions, I support many important aspects of the web site which has this web page:

Dam. I just made a long reply and lost it when I went back to read another comment. I will try to reconstruct it.

Most of the explosions heard some number of minutes after the plane hit Tower 1 and before Tower 2 collapsed, I believe, can be attributed to jet fuel somehow getting into the low rise elevator shafts, evaporating and being ignited possibly by elevator motors or switches. There were many reports of elevator doors being blown open and people with burns or with there close on fire in the lobby. This may have been intermittently happening all over the building. Backdraft or smoke explosions are more common in fires where there is a flammable liquid involved.

The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom sounds were reported by firefighters who were running away from the collapse of Tower 2. These are just the sounds you would expect to hear from the accumulating floors impacting each other as the top of the building began to come down.

That these boom, boom sounds didn’t occur until after the building started comming down is evidence that the collapse wasn’t caused by charges placed in the building. If there were charges responsible for collapsing the building they would have to have gone off before the collapse began.

The report of air rushing up the stair shafts in Tower 1 was from Tower 2 collapsing and forcing air, smoke and concrete dust either through the lobby or through the cellar areas and up the stair and elavator shafts. NIST reports that the fires on the upper floors of Tower 1 were accelerated at the time of Tower 2’s collapse from this air being forced up the shafts.

Bill Giltner,

If you read my comments above I explained a reason for the “Pulverized concrete”

The defective concrete could have been produced by adding too much water or air to the cement. Why add warer or air? Spreading and floating the vast area floors “in one pour”, “without the use of shores” as recommended by the engineers who designed the towers would have quickly exhausted the workers making such labor saving shortcuts very likely. Adding extra water is common to ease the spreading and floating work but it produces inferior concrete likely to desintegrate under stress.

I admit that, at the WTC, a lighter weight concrete was used than in other construction.

Conceding all these points, however, does not in any way give credence to your contention that the pulverization of the concrete can be explained by an inferior composition. I admit construction failures have been caused by inferior concrete.

On the other hand, the contention that what we saw on 9/11 at the WTC can be explained by inferior concrete is such a high form of hooey that I find myself spitting nails.

Well…What I see here is a narrowing focus on a broad subject. There is a lot of ground to cover here so I am not going to be concerned about the thickness of the floors. There are two ways to go here. A little about everything or everything about a little, and a little about everything would probably be applicable to finding the truth about such a broad subject as The World Trade Center Disaster…
Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth are looking into many of the details concerning building construction and consists of people with a lot of expertise in those areas. The thing that concerns me the most is that the NIST after all this time has not come forth with a final report and in my opinion is has put up a smoke screen…

In order for the Boom boom boom boom boom to occur before the towers collapsed according to your theory then there would have had to have been many elevators full of fuel going off and not just one or two..

Your reference makes much of NIST’s not analyzing the collapse after it’s initiation.

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39) ”

First of all, a complete analysis of the conditions existing after collapse began is vertually imposssible due to the caotic complexity of the impact interactions of the various collapsing floors, columns, walls etc. I have no problem with the progressive collapse continuing after the columns failed because: 1. the weight and momentum of the floors (one section of the floor weighed 500 tons). NIST has shown impacting the floor below after falling a single floor would collapse the floor truss below inducing large pull-in forces on the columns. The weight of the columns: 2. I saw one of those grapler trucks pick up one of those core columns and drop it one foot on to a truck bed. It practically blew out all the tires. A single 3 story column especially a core column if it came loose and gained some momentum would, I am sure, progress down through all the floors and wouldn’t stop until it hit bedrock. After the columns buckled on a single floor the momentum of the top of the building would be incredible. Breaking the single bolt support connections on each bar joist truss would be like an axe through a twig. There would be practically no resistance to slow the acceleration due to gravity as proved by the time to complete collapse.

Imagine the air pressure created by a 500 ton section of concrete and steel flooring falling and compressing a 12 foot chunk of air down to an inch in a fraction of a second. That air would blow out sideways at with considerable force and speed as was seen in the collapse videos.

I don’t think you understand the weight involved in one of these high rise buildings.

I don’t think you understand the weight involved in one of these high rise buildings.

The weight/mass of anything certainly does factor into the potential energy.

The problem is this (and yes I do understand this perfectly):

In order for pulverization to occur prior to impact with the ground surface, there must be crushing forces acting upon the concrete. Of course I can allow for the gypsum board and some other building material and components of the offices becoming granular without a lot of extraordinary force.

However, the idea that your alleged low grade concrete pulverizes on the way down or mixes with steel and other small molecules and forms spherical particles, as described in various assays of the dust around Ground Zero is just unsupportable.

You may know fire fighthing, and fire engineering. However, you are simply not on firm ground with your contentions here.

I believe the angled cuts in the core columns were made by the recovery workers. The aceteleine torches were used to remove the columns and it is standard practice to cut the steel at an angle so its fall can be controled. If you cut the steel horizontally you would not be able to control which way the heavy steel column would fall. It would be cut but it would be still standing ballanced on end, a dangerous condition.

Acetyleine torches? Standard practice? If you cut at an angle the metal is in effect thicker. This is thick metal here. Are you sure that more advanced techniques were not used.
Here are some more 54 more pictures of ground zero before all the “scrap/evidence” was hauled away. It is a real stretch for me to believe that all the angle cut columns etc. were made by an acetyleine torch.

I can’t say that all the cutting was made by acetyleine torches but I know a lot of it was. Using a metal cuting saw blade would be too slow. Cutting charges could have been used but I think it would be too dangerous with all the people on the pile. I believe that angle cut is also common in the demolition of buildings whether by torch or charges.

I believe Henry 62 answered the tourch question in Suszi Q’s site by showing how an oxygen cutting tourch can cut through very thick steel. Anyway I am revising my objections to the demolition theory:

Reports of Controlled Demolition

Many reports interpreted the loud sounds during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these ‘explosive’ sounds, -except a few just after the planes impacted, -were heard after the collapses began. The exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane’s impact. That’s 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2’s collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have happened with controlled demolition.
When the south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 99, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. In the North Tower “thunder” sounds were heard when floors collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, seismic instruments and a camera shaking on a tripod on a roof some distance away detected the impact of these first collapsing floors. I would explore these sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe most all of the supposed ‘explosive’ sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in and buckled by the bowing and buckling floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive ‘explosive’ sounds heard by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were probably caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.

It is also clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing tension could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension and helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls. All these adverse truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling happen at low temperatures (400 C to 500 C) even before the steel would have weakened from higher temperatures. The long span 60 foot trusses were not furnace tested at anytime. Once the exterior column buckling spread along an entire wall on one face the tower started leaning and the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core columns and the top sections of the towers began to tilt and fall. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some angles to have fallen straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and pulled the core to the south. The South Tower’s top tilted to the east (and south because the south wall was damaged) because its east wall buckled first. With the incredible weight of the top of the building gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolted connections holding the floors to the columns. Once the core columns got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. This coupled with the fact that the falling building’s top’s momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top building section’s acceleration to bedrock. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts would have been increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs increasing amplitude until maximum when the masses of floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.

There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been longer than ‘free fall’ times of an object dropped from the towers tops. I have an engineering question that may explain this. Since the Tower’s outer wall columns pealed out like a banana, they may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, would the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns; would these columns while leaning out be able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might help explain the rapid collapses especially in Tower 1.The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than ‘free fall’ times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating impacted floors above.
Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was because after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately by even the strongest computers.

In addition, the compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out of any air intake or discharge openings on the exterior walls on the lower mechanical equipment floors. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive vertical HVAC shafts built into the building. These shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts on the mechanical floors. Collapse of these shafts would force the dust and smoke out these HVAC exhaust and intake openings in the side of the building.

The lightweight aluminum cladding’s breaking free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off these aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive ‘squibs’.

Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel, and such indications were not found in the debris pile.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow connected to explosions or thermite charges. There were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at 327 C or 621 F. The heat form the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead which was seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS lan on the 13th floor of Building 7.

About the faulty concrete; besides the probable adding of too much air and water to the cement to ease the spreading, over the one acre floors these buildings were constructed through the winters and freezing concrete can destroy the bond between components.

The first thing you want to notice is the striated appearance of the cut edges. These are called “drag lines” and are characteristic of oxy-fuel cutting. Compare them to these photos from an online welding/cutting handbook:http://www.esabna.com/EUWeb/OXY_handbook/589oxy21_5.htm

The next thing to pay attention to is that the slag is clinging to the inner faces of the upper and farther cuts in the column, no slag is visible on the outer face of the nearer angled cut, but slag is clinging to the outer face of the bottom cut. As henry62’s blog demonstrated, the slag tends to accumulate on the side away from the torch, where it is blown by the pressure of the oxygen blast from the torch.

This is consistent with the upper cut and the two angled cuts being made from the outside of the column, the column being bent over and the final, bottom cut made from the now-exposed inner face. It is not consistent with cutting charges unless some of them were applied to the outer faces and some of them somehow applied to the inner faces.

Also, if you look at the debris around the column below the bottom cut, slag has dripped from the cut onto the debris. Since the debris is the product of the collapse of the towers, the cut was therefore made after the towers had collapsed, not before.

Finally, references to “cutting charges containing thermite” make no sense at all. Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive; linear shaped charges work by using the Munro effect to form a copper liner into a jet traveling at tens of thousands of feet per second. All that adding thermite to a linear shaped charge would accomplish would be to blow the thermite all over the surroundings before it could ignite or have any effect whatsoever.

As always, it appears that “truthers” are people who can’t see very well or think clearly about what they see.

Clearly, the way to read Arthur Scheuerman’ analysis is to skip forward to his conclusions. If he doesn’t claim that the towers were demolished, all that complicated engineering stuff can safely be ignored.

I imagine that arguing with those who refuse to give up their conspiracy fantasies despite the crushing pain of reality is like banging your head into the wall repeatedly. We’ve all been there.

It’s no use debating facts with the Troofers – they have formed conclusions in their minds long before they knew the facts, and are desperately trying to find their way to that conclusion by ignoring facts that they don’t “like,” rather than looking at the facts and letting the facts lead them to conclusions, as it is done in the scientific community.

There are plenty of places you can go to find out the facts that the conspiracy crowd doesn’t want you reading.

Possibly the post by Julian H West is intended as a parody of 9/11 fantasists who bring nothing to the table but hatred of America and a total lack of critical thinking skills. Sadly, the post is probably a real reflection of ignorance and irrationality so extreme as to render hopeless any attempt at honest debate.
There is a reason why all demolition experts (yes, Danny Jowenko included) reject the fantasist myth about explosives in the Twin Towers. That West wants to dismiss the science behind the collapses because it is inconvenient to his baseless fantasies is unfortunate for him, but worse yet for a free society that depends on the exchange of knowledge.

I am not going to spend too much time dishing on my adversaries above here. But I can tell you that Mr. Wieck has no interest in scientific principle. Would you believe he actually called Citizen Investigation Team “frauds” and yet HE NEVER EVEN LOOKED OUR EVIDENCE? He actually admitted, on the phone, that he never even watched the interviews we conducted that proved military deception at the Pentagon, yet had the audacity to call us frauds. Not very scientific if you ask me.

But this is not about him.

Arthur, you are a ‘techy’ kind of guy. I would love for you to explain how the plane at the Pentagon hit the infamous 5 light poles-one of which speared the windshield of a cab driver, came in low and level over the lawn, hit a fence/generator with it’s right/engine wing, slipped into the first floor, all while approaching from the north side of the Citgo gas station and pulling up into an ascent……when this damage REQUIRES it to be on the SOUTH SIDE of the Citgo, coming in a slight nose down, low and level attitude.

The fact is, Arthur, we have already proven 9/11 was inside job. “We” being Citizen Investigation Team. “Proven” meaning that because we discovered that the plane was on the north side of the Citgo it *automatically* means it was an inside job. Watch our interviews, Arthur, it is beyond conclusive. This is a detail that was researched and carefully and covertly documented on camera, on location at the Citgo. The simple fact of which side of the gas station the plane was on is what this all boils down to. The police officers and gas station had no idea of the implications of what they were telling us. They know now.

Our Shanksville representative, Domenick Dimaggio, has documented the presence of a small white UAV, and has not found sufficient evidence that a large 757 was actually seen diving from the sky nose first and crashing there. More witnesses to come, but here is the first groundbreaker to come forward…

Sure, Lt or Ron will tell you how we only have “a few witnesses” out of “hundreds” or “thousands”. But that is their ignorance speaking. Go research the witnesses Arthur, we have. In fact, we have exhaustively contacted a MAJORITY of the published accounts we have found. We have actually travelled to Arlington and documented the POV’s of witnesses, determing who is deducing an impact and who is actually claiming to have seen one. We have canvassed the streets of Arlington, speaking with genuine eyewitnesses along the flight path. We have spoken with victims, rescuers, firefighters, bystanders, cameramen, news reporters, and unfortunately operatives disguised as witnesses who were involved in this event.

Our work is conclusive. The plane came in on a completely different flight path than the NTSB and official story now explicitly illustrate, it was on the north side of the Citgo, it PULLED UP into an ascent only a split second from the “impact”, and most imprtantly it did not look like an American Airlines airliner…http://www.thepentacon.com/Flight77.htm

So, you have to ask yourself, Arthur. When do you stop rationalizing and finding “other”, “safer” explanations for explosions, molten metal for weeks (that melts rubber boots for crying out loud), pulverized concrete, an unprecedented total collapse WITHOUT STOPPING from only 4-5 damaged upper floors out of 110? Especially in light of all these other “coincidences”.

Did I tell you we also went to Vienna, VA and confirmed that the hijacker Waleed Alshehri actually lived there by interviewing neighbors? Did you know the official story wiped that clean from his history and swapped it with the son of a Saudi Diplomat who is blended into a Moroccan pilot who is still alive. Cloak and dagger indeed.

Lt and Ronald will undoubtedly fire off insults and innuendo. But what I have is bulletproof.

I just want to know, Arthur, how does a plane wing clip a light pole that is 300 ft away into pieces, while leaving 10+ other poles that are in between totally intact? How does it hit the first floor if it ascends?

Please review our witness testimony and reconsider your position on the towers.

Aldo, your flyover fantasy was discussed at length on JREF some time ago. The result is that you have zero eyewitnesses to the supposed flyover. Add to that the fact that the DoubleTree Hotel video would have shown the flyover and it doesn’t. Even your three “North of Citgo” eyewitnesses cannot confirm the flyover.

The only thing that you and CIT have proven is what lengths you will go to when trying to prove a baseless claim.

…to his reference to the ironically titled conspiracy site “Pentacon,” I think it’s painfully obvious who’s looking at facts and who’s trafficing in sophistry and conspiracy masquerading them as facts.

His “evidence” has been long debunked and he’s playing the uninformed for fools.

…to his reference to the ironically titled conspiracy site “Pentacon,” I think it’s painfully obvious who’s looking at facts and who’s trafficing in sophistry and conspiracy masquerading them as facts.

His “evidence” has been long debunked and he’s playing the uninformed for fools.

Of course, there they go with their direct assault on your senses with absurd links to outdated info.

They never address the cold hard facts that have been presented.

They boil it down to a “flyover”.

Why? Because that is the strawman argument that they use to sabotage the real evidence. The fact that the plane was on the north side, pulled up into an ascent, and did not look like an AA is irrefutable.

If any of those witnesses actually thought the plane flew over or away, then they would not have gone on camera.

But the fact remains, the light poles and cab driver are the real problem that they like to keep you distracted from.

Hey Lap or Lt, would you two be up for a recorded debate or discussion? One where you actually concede things? Or are you just going to keep spamming useless disinfo links while assuring everyone how crazy and wrong we are?

Why don’t you call in when we do radio shows?

Why does your cult-like forum make us send scans of our ID and other forms of identification in order to post there? To discourage us?

Have you been there? Have you investigated POV’s in the area? Have you even been there? Do you know the Topography doesn’t allow people to see the Pentagon along the flight path until you are right up on it? Did you know jets take off and fly over or near the pentagon all day, every 3 minutes because of Reagan National Airport? What about this?

“One reason for this false alarm
may have been a split-second decision by an
air-traffic controller. When the hijacked
plane turned into the Pentagon, it was on a
collision course with an airliner leaving Reagan
National Airport as scheduled. Without
the data from Flight 77’s transponder and
not knowing the intention of the hijacked
plane, the controller ordered the departing
aircraft to take a hard right, into the protected
airspace above the White House.***(!)”

Happy Halloween…I just noticed that this post is getting some action, including a couple of real spooks, who wouldn’t be here unless there was some thing that worries them. The truth is becoming more evident by more folks everyday, and their latest worry is Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Here is a link to George Washington’s blog with some excellent links where numerous credible scientists and engineers have recently dis-proven some of the most commonly-held, but false, theories about the collapse of the World Trade Centers on September 11, 2001.

Quote: “Clearly, the way to read Arthur Scheuerman’ analysis is to skip forward to his conclusions. If he doesn’t claim that the towers were demolished, all that complicated engineering stuff can safely be ignored.?”.

Well, here it is again, the powers that be telling the folks that they need not think. Just accept the words of your favorite authority to find out the conclusions. Sound familiar, if not check out HR 1955 that was just passed by congress. If these evil doers get their way it will be a crime to even think about the truth, let alone tell it like it is.

I thought this post was a dead end, but seen it on the top ten today…(: Checked out the link, some interesting posts, and I kinda like being called a moron. Thats what these extreme right wingers don’t get. It’s ok to be a moron and it’s ok to spotlight what we know as the truth. How could we be any more on than to get the attention of the naysayers with our idiotic prattle. Maybe from now on I’ll use Bushspeak and guarantee a little more attention from those that understand the idiom.

Bu$hco has done nothing with their investigation, while more and more folks are looking for the truth.
That’s why they are paying people to defend their crumbling credibility and attack what they call the troofers, loonies, morons, etc….No matter though, I guess that I sometimes do a little name calling myself… 😎

Wordgeezer, it would be nice if you were actually looking for the truth instead of finding excuses to hate the Bush Administration. PatriotsQuestion is a joke. They claim dead people question 9/11. They use appeal to authority fallacies and misquote all over the place. They use partial quotes as “proof” when the full quote tells a completely different story. The entire site is one big fallacy.

Smoking gun testimony, demolition detonations reported by top brass in official statement

The rank of this witness is:
CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE OF BATTALION 46

CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE QUOTE :

�SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT.

�INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS I COULD SEE.

(Article continues below)

�THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER, GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING. I WENT INSIDE AND TOLD EVERYBODY THAT THE OTHER BUILDING OR THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION OCCURRING UP THERE AND SAID THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER MAJOR EXPLOSION. I DONT KNOW IF WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE SAFE HERE.�

Meet Torin Wolf. He has a broad and varied background as a US Army Combat Nurse during Operation Iraqi Freedom,….

…building construction contractor, certified structural welder, certified asbestos and hazardous materials worker, experienced demolitions expert, teacher, radio show host, and well studied 9/11 truth activist. Torin knows how to put a building up, and bring the same building down in its own footprint. Torin’s free presentation, �Taking the Red Pill� was hosted by Brave New Books on 1904 Guadalupe in Austin last Saturday, June 23rd at 7 pm.

Torin is proud of his native Cherokee heritage and his mother is the Band Historian of the White River Band Cherokee from the central United States. Since he received his GED at age 14, saying he is a smart guy is putting it lightly. For over 12 years he worked as a hazardous materials contractor specializing in asbestos abatement and concrete construction sampling. Add to his resume the fact that he designed and implemented well over 100 controlled demolitions. He was not just helping at a lower level in the demolitions – he was the guy responsible for calling the shots. Afterwards, he became a certified structural steel welder and worked in heavy and mega construction for over 5 years in locations around the world including several skyscrapers.

Ironically, Torin signed his papers to join the army on September 11th, 2000. He knew something was wrong with the official 9/11 story when his army handlers took his squad into a room just in time to watch the buildings collapse. With his demolitions experience, he immediately knew those towers could not have fallen like that without explosives. He went on to serve �with honor and distinction� with the 21st Combat Support Hospital in Mosul, Iraq during the first part of Operation Iraqi Freedom and earned the Bronze Star with V device for valor in combat.

While saving over 120 lives, Torin earned the Combat Medical Badge by providing medical care to US, allied, enemy soldiers, and civilians under combat conditions. Torin’s arms display Samoan life saving tattoos, each line and symbol representing a group of lives saved. The army would like you to think he wasn’t in Iraq, but unfortunately for them, Torin appears in a recent documentary filmed there. A true hero helping save lives in the middle east, Torin can be seen in section 4 of a PBS documentary called �Life and Death in the War Zone.�

With Torins impressive list of qualifications, his unwavering voice holds a power that shatters the lies of 9/11 sold to us by the government and mainstream media, �The official story we’ve been told about 9/11 is absolutely, physically impossible.�

Those words are not just backed up with his qualifications because his presentation goes through the hard physics as well. The presentation starts out with a serious warning that reminds us the state our country is in after the false flag attack and ensuing tyrannical hijacking of the government on that September morning. A hijacking not by Bin Laden, not by Al Qeada, but by a group of tyrants that orchestrated and benefited from 9/11. �Unless you want to be charged as a terrorist, I suggest you leave the room now. This is technically seditious material and you can be charged under section 802 of the Patriot Act just for being here.�

This upsets a few people near the front row. Everyone looks around to see if that will scare anyone off but luckily no one leaves and the presentation continues. The bookstore is now filled with former American citizens, now terrorists, simply because they want to learn the truth of what happened on 9/11. If you think the patriot act only applies to foreigners or dehumanized muslims with brown skin, you are very wrong. Torin rubs the effect in even more, �We [American citizens] don’t even have to be charged � foreigners do.� Then tells us that the patriot act was written prior to 9/11, �This is admitted.� Also admitted is the fact that the patriot act has been used to come after American citizens over eight hundred times.

The presentation moves on and goes through some of the just plain crazy theories of why the towers fell, such as space beams, holograms, missiles, orbs, pterodactyls , etc., and easily debunks them. Torin then adds, �There is evidence most of these are put out by the government as disinfo.� Then explains how the White House, in violation of the law, has bought 28 billion, �Billion with a B � in fake news .

�But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?� Torin asks rhetorically. � Fire. � The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, �When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.� The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation. Torin then mocks the official story, �There’s no such thing as a ‘pancake’ collapse, but there is a progressive collapse�

A few slides are shown of progressive collapses throughout the world. None of them are anything like what happened to the world trade center with its pulverized concrete 100 microns or smaller just seconds after the start of collapse, and then its complete destruction. Torin uses his expertise to explain to the audience how and why a real progressive collapse occurs and subsequently why the WTC was not a progressive collapse. �The biggest problem with the argument,� Torin explains. �Time.�

Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. �The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.� How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds.

�For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. ‘Pancake theory’ does NOT explain the failure of the cores.� Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. “Nothing is holding the building up – No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time.”

Torin: “Nothing is holding the building up – No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time.”
Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures of the collapse initiation of the North tower , WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move. Why is this picture so interesting? It shows the antenna, which is held up by the core columns, fall before the rest of the building while the fire line on the 78th floor doesn’t move. Torin then goes through the hard physics of the scene we’re looking at and explains how it directly contradicts the official story, �This building is not collapsing on the 78th floor. The antenna falls 56 feet before the 78th floor falls.�

Torin then gives his expert analysis on building 7 for about five minutes. For those that are new to this information, building 7 was the third building to collapse on 9/11. After a thirty second countdown was given by firefighters, it collapsed perfectly into its own footprint at 5:20 in the afternoon. It housed the IRS, Department of Defense, CIA, Secret Service, and the Security and Exchange Commission among many others. While I can’t cover all of the hard hitting information Torin brought up about building 7, the highlight was his analysis of the collapse, which played over and over again on the screen behind him, �There is no doubt about it, this is a controlled demolition profile� then Torin directed everyone to view the kink , which is characteristic of a controlled demolition.

Dangerously high levels of asbestos, lead, PCB’s, mercury, radioactive materials, and powdered concrete were in the air after the towers were demolished. Much to the surprise of many audience members, we learned from Torin that by far the most dangerous on the list was the pulverized concrete. The pulverized concrete, which was thick in the air around ground zero after the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, had a pH of 12 which is �about the same as drain cleaner.� This pH level, when breathed in and gets wet in your lungs, will cause chemical burns. �Wet concrete can burn you,� Torin adds. The asbestos is bad, but that will kill you over 20 years – the powdered concrete will kill much faster. So its no surprise to learn that all of the 9/11 rescue and recovery dogs are dead.

Torins report goes on to explain how �emissions from the WTC piles were recorded to be hundreds of times above the legal Permissible Exposure Limit as established by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health for more than 2 weeks after 9/11.� Sheer contempt of Christine Todd Whitman, head of the EPA is expressed next by Torin. Torin is rightly angry at her for saying the air was safe to breathe and that people should return to work, even though they refused to release the data from their testing at that time to substantiate their declaration. Torin uncovers that, �The EPA didn’t begin monitoring for airborne asbestos levels until 8:00pm September 14, 2001 � a day and a half after they told everyone that it was safe to return.� Torin then cites the exact law that the EPA is violating and the number of regulatory duties that are violated as well. Torin has caught the EPA in direct violation of a federal law, punishable by up to 10 years in prison as well as a $250,000 fine for each violation. Before the EPA did the tests, independent tests were done in which the machines that do the air quality testing �were so full of junk that they couldn’t be read.� If that is the case, Torin adds, �You must, by law, throw the sample out.�

What was in the readable air samples? �Sampling of bulk materials and dust found generally low levels of asbestos.� Since Torin has worked with hazardous materials for over 12 years specializing in asbestos abatement, he knows quite a bit about the industry. �There is no such thing as a ‘low level of asbestos’. Bulk samples, by Federal law, either are (>1%) or are not (<1%) asbestos containing materials.� Bottom line, the EPA failed to perform its duties in regards to 9/11 and actively encouraged people to enter an unsafe area containing hazardous materials. As anyone working in the asbestos industry, Torin wanted to land the contract to clean the asbestos in the World Trade Center, �We all wanted the contract � you could clean a small section, sell the contract, and retire.� It was known in the industry as basically a goldmine of an asbestos abatement job, a contract worth over 3 billion dollars. Instead, the owner of the World Trade Center complex, �Lucky� Larry Silverstein actually made billions through insurance purchased before the towers destruction.

A critical slide in the presentation of Rudolph Giuliani is displayed next. It should be noted that Giuliani agreed with Christine Todd Whitman that the air at ground zero was safe. Giuliani was appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York in 1983. �So he knew a thing or two about criminal investigation procedures,� Torin adds. Knowing that, one has to wonder why he �sent more than 99% of the steel from the WTC to China and Korea in violation of proper chain of evidence.� Not only that, it was sent overseas at a price undercutting a New Jersey company. A company in New Jersey offered to pay $0.56 per ton, but it was sent out of the country to be smelted before experts could analyze the steel for signs of explosives for $0.50 per ton. Giuliani is clearly one of the perpetrators behind the crimes of 9/11, and he was confronted recently by a truth squad led by Luke Rudkowski. They wanted to know why his story has changed five times about his activities on the morning of 9/11.

So what does Torin think took down the WTC buildings? Different forms of thermite, such as thermate and one called super thermite. �If I was demolishing a building as high as the WTC, I would use thermite. It does what I want, when I want.� Torin then gets into the science of thermite, and what its actual chemical composition is. The same chemical composition found in the previously molten metal microspheres found in the WTC dust, discovered by professor Steven Jones . �The WTC ‘microsphere’ samples showed the presence of aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), copper (Cu), and sulphur (S).� Torins explanation continues, �The presence of sulphur in steel makes it brittle and lowers its melting point. Sulphur is NOT used in structural steel because of this. Powdered iron oxide (Fe2O4) and aluminum in equal parts make a compound called thermite. Add sulphur to thermite and you have a compound called thermate which is used in heavy demolition.�

Torin then explains super thermite, �Add potassium permanganate (KMnO4) and cupric sulphide (CuSO4) to thermate and you have something called ‘Super Thermite’ which is explosive and used in mega-demolition, such as WTC 1 & 2.� For obviously criminal reasons, �NIST refuses to comment on the presence of Al, Mg, S, K, or Cu in the samples.� Torin finalizes the evidence of explosives with statements made from numerous firefighters and reporters at ground zero such as Capt. Karin DeShore of the New York Fire Department , �Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center [WTC 1] there was this orange and red flash. Initially it was just one, then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode� These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building.� Torin explains, �That is a controlled demolition profile she is describing.�

Torin: “Save it why? Because its a demolition angle”
So who isn’t wanted for the crimes of 9/11? Gasps were heard from the audience as information relating to former paid CIA operative Tim Osman having no involvement in the crimes of 9/11. Tim Osman was Osama Bin Ladens CIA codename. New evidence has been released in the past month showing how the federal government allowed planes personally chartered by none other than Osama himself to get friends and family out of the country after 9/11. A quote from Osamas FBI page shows that he is in fact, not wanted for involvement in the crimes of that day. Torin shows a quote from the FBI director at the time, Robert Mueller, saying that there is �no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.” Well sourced evidence is then shown from multiple mainstream news articles proving that many of the hijackers are still alive. The official story does not add up.

The strongest part of Torins presentation is saved for the end, the aftermath of 9/11. A bleak picture is shown of the results of the false flag attack. An invasion of Afghanistan that was on Bush’s desk two days before 9/11 , over 655,000 admitted dead in the spreading war in the middle east, cheap heroin out of Afghanistan that the former Taliban government destroyed, soon to be full scale war in Iran, several thousand dead troops, and an oppressive police state at home being enforced by some of the returning aggravated felons that were doing the same in Iraq. �We are not deprogrammed after battle,� Torin explains when covering the mental aspects of war.

Torins insight as a combat nurse reveals that the actual amount of dead troops numbers around 15,000-17,000, not the 3,500 we have been told. �If you get shot in combat � Bam! Clock goes off. If you die in transit [to a hospital out of Iraq such as Ramstein in Germany] you are not an official Iraq casualty.� The same holds true if the troops out of the country die 24 hours after they were hit in Iraq. The official troop death number is just those that have died in action on the ground.

We are then shown that legally, �terrorist� is a term that can be branded on virtually anyone. �If you have ever thought of spanking your child, running a red light, or made someone angry then, by this definition, you are a terrorist!� And if you are charged as a terrorist, you will be tried in a military court. With the power slanted against you in a military court, the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case showed us that you do not even have to be released if found not guilty. This is a lot to swallow when you realize that �such persons are subject to indefinite imprisonment without charges, legal representation, or any of the other protections guaranteed by the Constitution,� Torins slide explains. Then the definition of domestic terrorism is shown, and we all learn that by this definition, not wearing your seatbelt, jaywalking, speeding, or spitting on the sidewalk is a terrorist act.

Fliers are shown next that originated out of the Department of Homeland Security and the Phoenix, Arizona FBI office. These are shown to policing agencies around the country. Torin explains how nearly all of the groups encompass normal citizens who have done no wrong such as Torins favorite, �Lone Individuals – If you don’t fit in any group, this is it.�

After a brief question and answer, Torin ends the presentation with a fitting quote from Thomas Jefferson, �Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.� A true patriot and truth activist, Torin is dissenting to expose the lies and crimes of our government in order to get it back from the tyrannical, criminal group sitting in power now and to return to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If you want to join Torin in this fight or ask him a question, he can be heard every Saturday and Sunday on the We The People Radio Network from 12 to 2 pm central. After his radio show, you can join him in person with an Austin 9/11 truth squad, getting the word out on the south steps of the state capital on Congress avenue every Saturday. This article is only just a few highlights of Torins presentation, so don’t miss the one next month at Brave New Books .

Update 7/29/2007: Download Torins Full presentation in Power Point format here.

Thanks for your concern about this old troofer, but I must assure you that I am not looking for excuses and I regard “hate” as an extreme word. Indeed, it couldn’t exist without love, of which massive doses will be required to overcome the damage done by Bu$hco.

For the record, let me state that Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke are utter frauds. Their tiny handful of cherry-picked witnesses have one thing in common: NONE OF THEM WITNESSED A FLYOVER OF THE PENTAGON. That’s correct: of the hundred or so witnesses who saw a plane crash into the Pentagon, three or four place it on an impossible flight path, but absolutely no one observed a flyover.

Now, here’s the key point. A serious researcher would ask these people which of their mutually-exclusive beliefs, the north-of-CITGO flight path or the crash itself, are they prepared to abandon. Ranke and Marquis don’t dare ask this question becuase they, like everyone else, know what the answer will be.

This is getting to be a habit. Torin Wolf is another fraud. I extended an invitation to him through Gibbwake to defend his nonsensical myths and outright falsehoods in a ‘Hardfire’ debate. Needless to say, he isn’t interested in debating anybody. And if you were peddling such a steaming pile, you wouldn’t try defending it, either.

Ya know Ronald, the best evidence is a documented diary or a detailed photograph. The beliefs of the witnesses means nothing. What we want to hear is exactly what they saw and heard in as much detail as possible. Their opinion, or for that matter your opinion doesn’t matter much to a conscientious observer.

It’s amazing how some people get everything right and some people get almost everything wrong. Some people try to analyze everything which is OK but you have to expect mistakes and a lot of them when you don’t spend the time needed for a correct analysis. I only stick to what I know and having studied the collapses for 6 years I know these buildings were not brought down by explosives. I have about 20 video tapes of my own which I have been intently reviewing. I am mainly concerned with why and how the towers and building 7 came down because it’s important for firefighter and public safety.

I don’t write anything about the Pentagon because I don’t study it. The Tower buildings were supposedly ‘‘fireproof” and by the Building Codes they were supposed to survive any possible fire. The Towers and building 7 had a design defect that allowed their collapse. If we have lost the capacity to build safe high-rises than we are in big trouble. I believe we should continue to investigate the collapse causes because we haven’t come to a consensus about the correct collapse parameters and the resulting correct method of preventing future tragedies.

Architects and engineers should be on the forefront of this endeavor. All this nonsense about controlled demolitions having brought down the buildings is only wasting time and delaying the real study needed to come to the correct conclusions about the collapses. The fact that so many A & E’s believe that Controlled Demolitions brought down the buildings just shows that some real scientific research is needed to come to valid conclusions that everyone can understand.

I propose some realistic research into the fire resistance of long span steel floor construction, be done to gain some understanding of the collapse parameters especially of long span “I” beam and floor truss collapse mechanisms.

Some real scale mock ups of long span floor and even whole building sections need to be built and subjected to real fires to gain understanding of what is happening with large uncontrolled fires when large area, long span construction is involved.

Well, wordgeezer, actually the best evidence is physical evidence, such as the aircraft wreckage and the remains of the passengers, including charred bodies still strapped into their seats, found at the Pentagon. DNA testing identified all but five of the passengers. Of course, as this conclusive evidence is highly inconvenient to the fantasists’ pernicious falsehoods, it must be dismissed.

Ronald….I’m listening and agree that physical evidence is as important as documentation. So what you are telling me is that there were some passengers still strapped to their seats, but where were they? Inside the building or blown out into the yard. There should have been a lot of debris, including the two massive jet engine turbines, wings, tail, etc. The turbine shown in the FEMA photo was , as you know, only about half as big as one from flight 77. Did the government pick up all of the evidence, including dead passengers and take it away….kinda like they did on the world trade buildings? Why won’t Bu$hco release video evidence so this controversy can be resolved?

The government also claims that they have almost all of the dna evidence from the pennsyvania crash too, although witnesses at the sight could find very little evidence that an airliner crashed there…Only a hole in the ground that looked like it was done by a missile…?

BTW Ronald…I don’t agree with you about many things, including tacking labels on everybody that doesn’t agree with you. Why don’t you interview Torin Wolf instead of having a hardcore debate so you can get some info instead of pissing him off, or maybe just wrestle him to see who knows the truth.
Everyone has their special abilities, so I guess that you will just have to call me a fraud too… 😆

Waddaya know? Besides dozens of people saying they seen an airliner crash into the pentagon.

BTW: There are many people who have lost their relatives who have been trying to get answers from Bu$hco since the 911 incident and still haven’t got them. The corporate government is not releasing any evidence…Why?

The reason for a lack of readily available info on the scene inside or around the Pentagon is probably largely because of the classified nature of the target, not to mention that it was a crime scene. You had FBI guys running around simply trying to do their jobs and mind these angles, and naturally appeared to be acting suspiciously.

Everything is not automatically available for public scrutiny. There are matters of security, protocol, and discretion in the case of relative’s sensitivities. Do you expect to see all the details and gory pictures that the police took of that gruesome car accident you drove by the other day, especially if it involved someone you cared about?

“besides dozens of people saying they seen an airliner crash into the Pentagon”

Did you really mean that? When dozens of people independently testify to seeing basically the same thing, do you really not regard that as a darn good indication that it did indeed happen?

I guess it would be one thing if nobody saw an airliner hit, and nobody could find any airliner parts, and no passenger remains could be identified, and a black box wasn’t found from which the path of the plane was recreated. THEN, suspicions of something else happening would make some sense. But all those things did happen, and they’re a major, in fact insurmountable obstacle to those who would imagine something so polar opposite having happened. You might as well be trying to drive your family sedan to the top of Everest.

I’m sure there’s many survivors who have questions that haven’t been answered. But I think the vast majority of them at least understand that the real villains of that day were a bunch of brain-washed Arab a**holes, and not their own government, which was doing pretty much the best a huge bureaucracy could be expected to do in dealing with an unprecedented, overwhelming situation.

So here we are six years later without a viable investigation and the government holds all the evidence. How are “We The People” expected to believe this secretive administration, when they won’t even explain or show us proof for the conclusions that seem more than questionable?

Do you believe that a complete and unbiased investigation of 911 by a non partial committee might help to clear things up?

I ask these questions while knowing that you are here to do only one thing…so have at it

How did the core columns in each building become separated due to fire, knowing that steel weakens at half temperature strength, the adiabatic flame temperature according to the thickness of steel that the rate at least takes 7+ hours to begin this process of tension creep, how does the steel fail on 9/11?

When the east wall columns of Tower 2, for example, were pulled inward by 2 or more sagging floors they buckled. Columns are designed to handle vertical loads not lateral loads. When a column is subjected to a lateral force which it cannot resist it bends. If it bends far enough the vertical weight (axial force) on the columns from the building above causes the columns to buckle. When a column buckles it (by definition) cannot hold the weight in compression and it folds up (becomes plastic) and releases the weight.

If other columns are not close enough and strong enough to hold the added weight they too will fail and the failures will progress, and, as happened in the Towers, the failures eventually progressed to all the columns laterally around the entire building.

The column failure was not due to heat. It was due to the long span, bar-joist floors failing from the differential thermal expansion of the truss parts, deconstructing the trusses causing them to collapse into catenaries (like a cable in suspension) which exerted pull-in forces laterally on the columns. Thermal bowing in the trusses was also involved. Once the entire east perimiter wall buckled inwards the damaged south wall and north wall columns were overloaded and buckled sequentially westward and the building tilted to the east and south. The tilt caused the eccentric weight of the building to be transferred to the east core columns these columns buckled sequentially followed by the west perimeter columns which buckled as the top of the building rotated.

Tower 1 had a similar fate except that the south perimeter wall first buckled inwardly were pulling the building along with the core and attached antenna to the south. The column failures seemed to progress faster across the North Tower probably because they were of lighter weight on the higher floors and probably weakened more by the fires which burned longer before collapse.

The exterior columns had weak column splices being held by 4 bolts alone and were not welded.

The core columns were built for gravity loads only and had little lateral support to resist horizontal forces. They also had “minimal erection splices” which were not designed for lateral loads. Once the floors failed there was little lateral support to handle the collapse forces and the core columns buckled at the splices.

You say there’s been no viable investigation, but of course there has been, many, actually.

But I don’t think there was then or is today even the slightest mystery or question in the minds of the firemen, rescue personel, FBI investigators, engineerings and medical forensic investigators as to what hit the Pentagon.

So you see, yours and their ideas about investigations are quite different. They have no reason to conduct an investigation along the lines that you desire, because they have no reason whatsoever to suspect what you do. But they have done much investigating along their lines. There’s been criminal investigation done resulting in evidence used during the Moussaoui trial. There’s been engineering investigations done to facilitate the clean-up and rebuilding of the structure. There’s been forensic investigation done to identify victims. And there’s even been computer simulation done to help visualize (and more closely recreate and thus determine and as a by-product prove and verify) the particulars of the interaction between the plane and the structure.

I see that someone above has done some interviews of “witnesses”, but did that include any of the people that were actually on the scene rescuing and recovering survivors and victims within the remnants of the building and plane? It doesn’t look like it. Obviously, these would be prime witnesses, and their absence is not acceptable.

Do I think an “unbiased investigation” would help clear things up? For most people, things are quite clear already. And I’m confident that any TRULY unbiased investigation would conclude very much the same as has the “official narrative” currently. More interesting questions are whether you would accept another investigation’s outcome, regardless of the result, and how quickly and excitedly would you post news of newly discovered independent accounts of people saying they saw a missile hit the Pentagon, or whatever exactly you think happened.

Yes, I would be all for an additional truly unbiased independent investigation done by legitimately qualified professionals in the appropriate fields, putting aside the fact that I think it would be a waste of tax money to investigate the obvious. But I would have to receive some confirmation that the result would be accepted, and not just angrily trashed or ignored if it didn’t perfectly conform to expectations.

Withholding evidence is not a crime, unless there is a crime at issue.

I have lots of evidence of lots of things in my possession, but until someone files criminal charges against me and asserts that this evidence is pertinent to their case, and a judge agrees they have a case and agrees the evidence is pertinent, I have no obligation to share my evidence.

These conditions, which I’m sure you’d expect to be fulfilled if someone were to demand evidence from you, have not been met in the case of the Pentagon, or Penn., or the WTC; thus “Bu$hco” is guilty of nothing in this regard, at least at this point in time.

So what needs to be done in order to advance the ball beyond Internet chat is to raise money, hire a team of lawyers, engineers and investigators, and construct and file a case in the U.S. court system. Then, if the case passes muster with the judge, and he agrees that Bu$hco must turn over evidence and it refuses, only then will Bu$hco be guilty of withholding evidence.

Probably better not to employ history revisionists (American Free Press) and serial fabricators (Bollyn) in an effort to divine the “truth” about something.

I assure you, any reluctance to release any tapes or recordings of firefighters had nothing to do with an effort to cover up a “controlled demolition”, as AFP simply assumes. That little controversy over who was to blame for radio failures just might have had something to do with it, however. I don’t see any reference to the U.S. Justice Dept.; perhaps you can prove that with a more reliable and reputable source.

Greater Presidential authority in times of national emergency and war is not really anything new, and it’s been exercised far more vigorously by Presidents other than George W. Bush. FDR would be thought of as a Hitler-like concentration camp keeper by today’s standards, and of course the administrations during Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon kept a close eye (bug) on rabble-rousers like Martin Luther King and the “Winter Soldiers”.

Well, yaknow….The truth is where you find it and when you do you will know it. It will be eternal, unchanging, and maybe even fill you with wonder, but you won’t find it on the main stream media. “American Free Press”, has a nice ring to it and sounds much nicer than Faux News and name calling won’t change that.

The horrible events that happened under the watch of FDR and Harry Truman shouldn’t be used to validate the unilateral takeover of the Middle East and the demise of the united States of America by a bunch of Ideological Idiots.

Quote: “Greater Presidential authority in times of national emergency and war is not really anything new”

Very profound, Nick…Have we learned nothing from the horrible history of WW2, especially in regard to the use of Nuclear bombs instead of wisdom and diplomacy?

Thanks for the assurance that this has nothing to do with a government cover-up. You have no idea how “secure?” this makes me feel… 😆

Then why did the architects overcompensate for such scenarios for each tower Arthur? The buildings were designed for such plasticity from such an accident. Are you saying their architectural design was flawed?

Absolutely the Towers design for fire resistance was flawed. I.e. 1. Open stairways allowed smoke and fire spread upwards. 2. Wide open areas not separated by fire walls allowed large fires to attack large areas of building. 3. No sprinklers originally designed into the buildings. 4. Inadequate fireproofing insulation on trusses. 5. Long span, lightweight trusses too slender to handle compression forces due to steel expansion. 6. No lateral support in the core to resist eccentric forces created by thermal effects of fire. 7. Weak column splices both perimeter columns and core columns. No resistance to floor expansion compression and pull-in forces from truss failure and thermal bowing in bar joists. 8. Columns in office areas too far apart to pick up loads when exterior walls were pulled in by floors in catenary action. Etc. etc.

“The column failure was not due to heat. It was due to the long span, bar-joist floors failing from the differential thermal expansion of the truss parts, deconstructing the trusses causing them to collapse into catenaries (like a cable in suspension) which exerted pull-in forces laterally on the columns.”
Arthur Scheuerman
November 3rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm

“6. No lateral support in the core to resist eccentric forces created by thermal effects of fire. 7. ”
Arthur Scheuerman
November 4th, 2007 at 11:01 am

“It is now known that the floor system was extremely robust,” adds Charlie Carter, P.E., S.E., director of engineering and continuing education for the American Institute of Steel Construction, in Chicago. “As were the connections to the exterior walls. NIST’s report provides photographic evidence of this. In fact, NIST also reports the floor trusses pulling in the wall. One can’t have it both ways. In the collapse, the debris descending did tend to strip the floor framing off of the wall framing but that is entirely different.”

“At temperatures of 120 degrees C (248 F) until 300 degrees C (500 F) or so, there is no change in the properties of steel or concrete, no loss of strength. Beyond that, steel loses strength. At 800 to 1,000 degrees C (1,472-1,832 F) it is 20 percent of what it should be.

“That being the case, the fire on these floors had a consequence: The truss floors sagged due to the temperature and pulled on the fasteners to exterior columns,” he continues. “Remember, the columns can support the load itself, they are very strong. After the planes hit and eliminated some columns, the rest of the columns took the load.

“If the steel reached 1,000 degrees C (1,832 F),” he continues, “you lose support from the trusses. These columns now become ‘long,’ not supported over three or four stories (due to sagged trusses) and the columns’ weak point buckled. As they buckled, the floors above collapsed.

“Each floor could easily support two to three times its floor weight,” Mirza continues. “If only a few floors had sagged, the building would not have collapsed. But once upper floors collapsed onto floors that had fires, the fasteners ‘unzippered,’ from the floor slab, unable to resist that high of load.”

An aspect of the collapse that has caused some confusion is the failure of the “angle clips” supporting the floor trusses as Achilles’ heels.

“When the NOVA special aired a few years ago, I got a little angry when they said things like, ‘The pin connections had long been suspected,” comments Don Allen, PE, of the Steel Framing Alliance. “Well, those pin connections, and the trusses, and the entire structural and life safety system did great under nominal and design loads. If someone whacked your legs with a baseball bat, and you fell to the ground, would it be fair for an analyst to say that part of the reason for your collapse may be your suspect kneecaps? I think not.”

There are other misconceptions regarding angle clips.”

“Although often called “angle clips,” the fasteners were actually welded gusset-type connections at the ends of the trusses,” Carter says. “The angle supports were only there for the purposes of steel erection with the welded gussets added after and carrying all the load. This also contradicts the failing of the angle-clip bolts theory. These were erection bolts and they carried no load in the completed structure.”

The discrepancy noted by skeptics of the official story here is the intensity and the duration of fire, and whether it was enough to initiate total collapse.

A FEMA photograph shows survivors at the impact zone. If it was an intense enough fire to weaken steel, how could people be hanging around the impact zone, many have asked.

“Remember, fire alone did not cause these collapses,” Carter emphasizes. “These fires were coincident with massive structural and non-structural damage, very different from the idea that fire alone is responsible.”

Now see why this is troubling. First you’re saying that heat and not fire are effectual, then you change and say both are effectual, when if the trusses made of A36 steel, that they should not reach half stress until after a certain amount of hours. If there was enough tension to stretch the steel, this picture looks completely different than NIST’s wtc walls being pulled inwards as steel does not contract with weight, it lengthens under tension. Other experts also see no buckling from the angle clips, Since the angle clips themselves distribute no lateral stresses, but primarily outer vertical outer stress.

Could temperature of heat exceed 1000 degrees against the steel with areas inside? Maybe if there were plastics involved, but considering that entropy denies the heat and fire a perfect symmetrical collapse this enough for me to throw doubt onto the heat and fires in the building. Secondly, jet fuel isn’t a gasoline fire, so the temperature of any unspent fuel isn’t able to attack the steel.

The article from “Walls and Ceilings” that Time&Again linked to is actually quite devastating to the “controlled demolition” theory, when read in its entirety.

Besides ridiculing CD explanations, the article illustrates how early theories are often flawed, (in this case largely because of incomplete information) and the value of the exhaustive NIST investigation. If NIST had not been employed, we would still all be simply saying “well, yeah, the steel melted and the building fell down”.

That’s roughly correct, but things are far more complicated than that, and it would have been difficult or impossible to make proper and useful recommendations for changes to building codes without the full picture and complexity of the event being discovered and dissected.

That’s not to say that every aspect of every theory by NIST is perfectly on the mark, because after all, there were no surviving witnesses to the exact course of events from within the impact zone. But theories and conclusions were based not on some odd, baseless assumption that our own govt. must have blown them up, but on qualified professionals examining thousands of pictures and videos, conducting hundreds of interviews, performing forensic analysis of debris and inspecting construction records — among I’m sure many other things.

Nick: “That’s not to say that every aspect of every theory by NIST is perfectly on the mark, because after all, there were no surviving witnesses to the exact course of events from within the impact zone.”

Oh well, as you mentioned before, the physical evidence is the most important. Too bad that the evidence was melted down so soon, wouldn’t you agree? 😉

There’s a reason why many people assumed it would be a good thing to get rid of a huge debris pile as quicky as possible: Nobody had the slightest question as to why, at least generally, the towers went down, and who was responsible.

It didn’t take long for firemen and others to point out that evidence needed to be preserved, and therefore NIST had access to plenty of steel.

But like the supposed hidden 78 min. tape, the purpose for getting rid of steel wasn’t to cover-up a crime by Bu$hco, it was merely to expedite the clean-up. And for some, no doubt, to make a quick buck.

It wasn’t because firemen and engineers suspected a Bu$hco CD that they voiced their concern about the loss of steel evidence, it was because they suspected faulty steel fire-proofing and poor truss performance during fire.

And it turned out they were largely correct.

“However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.” — William Manning, editor, Fire Engineering Magazine.

Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying, “Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”

You didn’t mention thermal expansion as a destructive mechanism in trusses. Thermal expansion begins immediately as the steel is heated.UK engineer Dr. A.S. Usmani, et al., related the following relative to his preliminary findings about the collapse of the WTC Towers:

“Due to their length and slenderness, the thermal expansion effects in long-span, steel bar joists produce compression buckling in floors at lower temperatures than are presently compensated for in the fireproofing codes. This sort of thing has not been considered in the design of high-rise structures, with the possibility of multiple-floor fires.”

Longer-span steel structural members expand a greater distance than short-span elements, and, as they are heated, slender elements can fail from buckling under compression at temperatures that are still low enough (400° to 500°C) that the steel retains most of its strength.

Lighter-weight elements expand and weaken faster because of more rapid increases in temperature when heated in a fire. Usmani, et al., found in their model of the system used in the towers that the ultimate failure was caused by instability in the perimeter columns induced by floor displacements.

NIST computer studies revealed that at 340°C, the loss of the composite bond between the concrete floor and the steel bar joists in the towers’ long-span, bar-joist floor causes buckling of the top chord and failure of the diagonal struts from shear forces. In finite element, computer studies, early low temperature bowing, and catenary action (acting like a cable in suspension) was induced in the floor system, leading to pull-in forces on the support columns or floor disconnection from the columns. (2, Appendix K)

In the Underwriters Laboratory, Inc. (UL) furnace test, the standard method of testing building components, steel with one-half-inch ‘spray on’ insulation, as originally specified in the towers, reached over 1,100°F, or 593°C, in about one hour. According to the code, the floor should have maintained structural integrity for two hours. The two-hour, floor-stability code provision itself may be inadequate, since Tower 2, reported to have the floors protected for two hours in the impact area, collapsed in a little less than two hours.

Besides restrained thermal expansion in long span, bar joists causing buckling, the steel is also affected by thermal bowing, because of temperature differences through the cross section and differing composite materials with different coefficients of expansion, such as concrete and steel. Thermal bowing by expansion of the bottom chord in the truss induces an immediate increase in tension (pull-in forces) between the bar-joist connections to the columns. (2, Appendix M

The wider floor sections had longer 60 foot joists, which, because of increased loads, would be inherently weaker and would expand and lengthen a greater distance if exposed to heat. Note: “Steel will expand .06 percent to .07 percent in length for each 100°F rise in temperature. Heated to 1,000°F, a steel member will expand 9½ inches in 100 feet of length.” 21 According to the FEMA, ASCE- Building Performance Study, “an unrestrained, 20-meter-long [about 60-foot] steel member that experiences a temperature increase of 500°C [1,022°F] will expand approximately 110 mm [4.0 inches].”

“Differential expansion of steel is probably the main cause of failure of the floor system used in the towers. Since the top chord of the long-span truss is steel, it will elongate more than the top concrete slab at the same temperature. Steel, if not adequately insulated, will also absorb heat faster than concrete. Steel differential expansion has been shown to be a cause of bowing, shear-induced buckling of the struts and the loss of composite action in the floor system [as a result of] the shear ‘knuckles’ detaching from the concrete. The knuckle bonds sequentially break, starting at the ends, eliminating the composite action under load. “(NIST, 2, Appendix K):

As the steel is heated further and temperatures rise to higher than 600°F, steel loses strength. At 1,200°F (about 650°C), steel loses about 50 percent of its strength. At 1,300°F (about 700°C), the yield point is drastically reduced, and steel members fail. Steel must be protected from heat by adequate fireproofing insulation and integrated properly to compensate for the effects of thermal expansion and contraction during fires as well as loss of strength. To maintain building stability, lateral bracing becomes even more important in construction that features lightweight, long-span floors.

Also the welded gusset plates were installed only on the exterior joist connections to the columns. The interior connections had only one bolt holding each truss and resisting lateral pull-in forces.

The engineers would have taken all of these factors into account when designing the building, and as you know, Steel and concrete have nearly the same co-efficient of expansion. .0000065 as opposed to .0000067.

No other steel framed skyscraper has collpsed due to fire damage, yet three collapsed on the same day on the same sight. What do you suppose the odds are of this happening? Oh…Thats right, speculation is not in your notebook, you use scientific theory to do your debunking with…G:

Once again you claim that forces pull inward during heat under tension, this is not expansion, and it cannot happen as science states. If you have another example of how this contraction pulling of inward forces under heat can occur with steel sagging to pull, please show me how steel contracts under heat, I’d like to see this paper, film, diagram etc… Pulling stress from heat would be due to the gravity of a petro-chemical fire of over 1000 degrees cel. How does supported trusses from below not sustain gravity forces from above during a fire, when as wordgeezer says:

“The engineers would have taken all of these factors into account when designing the building, and as you know, Steel and concrete have nearly the same co-efficient of expansion. .0000065 as opposed to .0000067.”

Have been very well documented and studied by materials and pyretics engineers.

Another note that the last post fails to recognize that steel sagging cannot occur unless the fire reached temperatures of over 1000 degrees, which the roads that entropy takes for it to become efficient enough to weaken steel sufficiently. At best quality of adiabatic temperatures suggests the steel only weakens to twenty percent. NIST tested trusses, but failed in getting results due to the chances of instrumentation malfunction, but never conclusively solved the time over temperature expression for the limits of the WTC/A36 steel.

“At temperatures of 120 degrees C (248 F) until 300 degrees C (500 F) or so, there is no change in the properties of steel or concrete, no loss of strength. Beyond that, steel loses strength. At 800 to 1,000 degrees C (1,472-1,832 F) it is 20 percent of what it should be.”

This heat should be insufficient to weaken steel (if it was steel), as it would take higher degrees to get molten iron (or metals seen streaming from the building), and allow people to stand near the impact zones.

“9-11 Commission Report Implicitly Discredited by More Than 100 Architects and Engineers.”

Now just how can architects and engineers “discredit” the 9/11 commission report when the 9/11 commission report’s purpose/intent was to deal with pretty much everything but architectural or engineering issues?

Is this some more of that “American Free Press” inspired style of inventive, free-spirit “journalism”, where things are molded and manipulated into being true, even when they’re really not?

All this begs obvious questions that “demand answers”. Reasonable answers.

Why is it so hard to accept the fact that we were attacked on 9/11 by Muslim extremists? It’s not like it’s out of character for them, and there’s mountains of evidence to confirm it. Not to mention their own admissions. They continue to blow things up and kill innocent people all over the world to this day, and threaten more 9/11s. American governments don’t have a record of deliberately killing their own citizens, but rather going to great lengths to protect them.

What is so mysterious about the collapse of the towers, given their unique construction, the massive damage inflicted, the subsequent fires and the destruction of sprinkler systems. Not to mention there being no tangible evidence of explosives, and no credible testimony to knowledge of such a plot.

How can some people read about police helicopter reports of bowing columns and their warnings of imminent collapse; then watch a video that clearly shows the severe bowing inward and subsequent fracturing of those columns and not understand that this is not due to some kind of explosive?

How can some people not comprehend just how much weight the upper blocks of those towers exerted upon their respective damaged and burning areas, and just how much energy was released upon the failure of that area?

Why is it so unreasonable that a 47 story building, badly damaged in a key area of structural support, and suffering by many accounts “huge fires” for several hours, might just collapse, and that the collapse might just happen rather quickly upon initiation, just as do many if not most collapses?

What exactly would be the motive for carrying out such a grand scheme, and just how in the world could it all be kept under wraps for so long, not to mention being pulled off leaving not a trace of evidence? They couldn’t even do a simple burglary at the Watergate without getting caught and then blabbing about it. Every secret of the CIA and FBI is regularly exposed on the front pages of the N.Y. Times. Terrorists now know that we’re listening in on their conversations, monitoring their websites, tracking their finances and btw, water-boarding won’t really hurt you, just hang in there.

Why has not a single legitimate reputable Bush-hating investigative journalist or media outlet (a Hirsch, a Woodward, a Bernstein, a Moyers, 60 min, Dateline, 48 hours, Frontline, NOW) run with this seemingly extraordinary story, except maybe for the purpose of ridiculing the “truth” movement?

But most importantly, why has there not been a firestorm of protest from the learned, brave and ever vigilant engineering, firefighting and law-enforcment communities against this crime by their government that so intimately affected them especially, a crime which is purportedly so very obvious even to the most casual observer?

Do you know what a false flag attack is? This is what’s represented as an attack by proxy by someone ignoring the fact it was going to happen from within our own government. Yes they may have been middle eastern, but that does not put the facts that the government went on ignore upon any mention of this attack by proxy, i.e. possible false flag attack.

NIST explains that the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of steel at 500°C is twice that of lightweight concrete, so thermal bowing will be a problem in composite steel and concrete floors, even if the heating is even from top to bottom.

“At temperatures of 120 degrees C (248 F) until 300 degrees C (500 F) or so, there is no change in the properties of steel or concrete, no loss of strength. Beyond that, steel loses strength. At 800 to 1,000 degrees C (1,472-1,832 F) it is 20 percent of what it should be.”

This comment only talks about strength. It does not talk about the compression and shear forces produced in the truss as the steel expands. Steel expands immediately upon temperature increases. The fact that it still retains it strength as it expands is responsible for the destructive properties in trusses. Differential expansion because of temperature differences between the top and bottom chords is responsible for buckling the diagonal struts. These struts or webs do not buckle from heat they buckle elastically due to shear between the chords. All the truss parts maintain their material strength. Once the truss buckles it looses beam action (stiffness) and can act as a catenary (in suspension). Suspension forces are increased as the square of the truss length. Long span trusses after buckling in compression can create about 14 kips of force (tension).

NIST computer analysis shows that “the top chords of the truss yield in compression [when the steel reaches temperatures] beyond 300°C (for clarity, the concrete floor slab is not shown). This buckling is due to the significant difference of coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) between concrete and steel.… Web diagonal buckling starts around 350°C, and as seen in the figure, some diagonals are bent significantly in the plane of the truss by high axial force and end moments.” These lower temperatures are easily reached at a fire. Axial force in the floors is caused by the thermal expansion of the truss against the columns; the truss being compressed.

According to NIST computer studies: “at 400°C, the knuckles from the interior and exterior supports start to fail sequentially toward the center. The first knuckle reportedly detached at 100 C. The loss of composite action caused the floor to begin to sag. Eventually, at about 500°C, with the truss sagging almost 20 inches, the bolts at the interior connection sheared off. At 560°C, the exterior columns began to displace inward [as] the truss began to act as a catenary. At 650°C, the truss walked off the interior seat.’” Note that these are steel temperatures: the fire gas temperatures would be higher, since the fireproofing insulation delays transfer of heat to the steel.

According to the FEMA Building Performance study “In Building 5 there were… shear failures … at connection ends in several of the beam web[s] … indicative of tensile forces that developed [because the] deformed structure subjected the bolted shear connections to a large tensile force. …Tensile catenary action of floor framing members and their connections has been neither a design requirement nor a design consideration for most buildings. Further study of such mechanisms for member failures in fires should be conducted to determine whether current design parameters are adequate for performance under fire loads.”

According to NIST:
“The main-trusses were simultaneously challenged in a similar way by the fire. Restrained elongation of the top chord superimposed a bending moment on the truss as a whole, increasing its tendency to deflect downward with possible buckling of the top chord in the vertical plane. With most of the compressed diagonal rods already buckled, the beam or truss behavior no longer existed, and the top chord acted as a cable from which all other members were hanging downwards.”

A good example of ‘thermal bowing’ uncomplicated by restrained expansion. Before heating, the bottom chord is in tension and the top chord is in compression as the truss supports the floor loads. As the bottom chord is heated, it begins to expand. The increasing length and reduced tension in the lower chord allow the diagonal struts to descend and the floor loads to bend the top chord down. As the top chord is bent, compression in the top chord is reduced, and the floor loads begin to be carried by increasing tension (suspension) in the top chord. Because of the increasing curvature and tension, with no linear expansion in the cool top chord, the truss begins to ‘pull-in’ horizontally on the columns. As the bottom chord continues to expand the top chord eventually becomes a catenary. Thermal bowing forces may increase as the deflection increases with greater pull-in forces produced than in a truss just collapsing into a catenary. Thermal bowing may have been earlier and more important in the towers’ collapse than restrained expansion buckling of the trusses because of the less expansion in the composite concrete top chord’s (lower CTE) and less insulation on the bottom chord and the heated black smoke, which can heat the lower chord twice as fast as the top chord. The deficient fireproofing on the lower chords in Tower 2 could have helped induce rapid thermal bowing in the trusses.

Thermal bowing operates the opposite way, -increasing tension as the bow increases, – to the effect of a catenary in which the pull-in force decreases after the truss has lost stiffness and the sag still increases from thermal expansion. From a firefighter’s point of view, it is difficult to tell whether an increasing sag in a truss floor is leading to increasing or decreasing tension on the connections to the columns. Any sag should be taken to indicate a serious condition.

In thermal bowing since the top chord is initially cool and is not expanding against the columns, the thermally bowing floor as a whole is not affected by restrained expansion. It eventually reaches a stage where the top chord is supporting the entire floor load in suspension without the help of the bottom chord, whose tension has been released. At this point, the top chord is acting as a cable in suspension. Most of the tension in the bottom chord has been released as a result of its expansion.

As one portion of the bottom chord continues to expand from the heat, some of the stiffness is maintained in the truss, especially at the middle, on the cool side. As the bottom chord still expands, it eventually changes from lessening tension to increasing compression, – and this is the questionable part -, it begins to pull the top chord further down. This effect further increases the tension in the top chord and pulls the columns inwards with a greater force than merely suspension. This is apparently the reason greater tension can be exerted by thermal bowing than a catenary can.

To conceptualize the situation, invert the truss and imagine the bottom chord, now on top, as a concrete arch bridge, with the roadway suspended below on cables. As the concrete arch thermally expands more than the roadway, it gradually bows upward. The concrete arch as it expands eventually pulls the roadway up into tension and relieves any compression against the supports. Pulling the roadway into tension reverses the push-out against the supports and turns the force into increasing pull-in.

As the steel temperature rises, the diagonal web members near the truss ends may eventually buckle from the shear forces as one chord expands faster than the other and the bottom or top chord may buckle in compression. Such web buckling could remove truss stiffness and turn the truss back into a catenary, eliminating some of the extra pull-in forces induced by thermal bowing. This bottom chord or the web buckling would allow deflection to be temporarily reduced and the column to straighten up, as mentioned in the NIST report. Thus, we see the 42-kip (actually 21 kip per column) pull-in force is developed in the floor, which is dominated by thermal bowing. We can posit thermal bowing as an active contraction force and not merely a mechanism inducing buckling and catenary suspension forces.

Well, this is certainly getting to be a nitty gritty focus, on a small aspect of why the buildings collapsed, as far as the big picture goes. I find myself wondering why I try to follow this growing scenario of events and probabilities. I did pass a junior civil engineers exam, but I think Architects & Engineers could follow this with a lot more clarity than me. Concrete expands more at higher temperatures? Wow…this is a profound revelation to me.

Here is an interesting quote from an above post by Nick…

“Now just how can architects and engineers “discredit” the 9/11 commission report when the 9/11 commission report’s purpose/intent was to deal with pretty much everything but architectural or engineering issues?”

“Why has not a single legitimate reputable Bush-hating investigative journalist or media outlet (a Hirsch, a Woodward, a Bernstein, a Moyers, 60 min, Dateline, 48 hours, Frontline, NOW) run with this seemingly extraordinary story, except maybe for the purpose of ridiculing the “truth” movement?”

If you have read and understand what these excellent and above all TRUTHFUL authors reporters and authors have to say, why are you working on an insignifigent blog spot trying to debunk the articles written by, what the sympathizers of Bu$hco have called morons?

Now just how can architects and engineers “discredit” the 9/11 commission report when the 9/11 commission report’s purpose/intent was to deal with pretty much EVERYTHING BUT architectural or engineering issues?

answer __________

T&A said:

“Yes they may have been middle eastern…”

That’s a start. At least you’re not in complete denial. Baby steps. 🙂

You’re accusing unnamed people of having knowledge of and letting happen what could easily have been the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Americans.

Unless you have some pretty solid evidence of this, what you’re engaging in is nothing short of irresponsible. Not to mention damaging to the country that reliably defends your right to make such baseless charges.

Would you appreciate someone accusing you of such horrendous crimes with no proof whatsoever, or would you demand something a little more meaningful than offering up the concept of “false flag”?

There are many people from all walks of life that believe that all three buildings were demolished.
A&E seems to ascribe some importance to whether they were or not, as this is in their area of expertise.

First, I asked for an example of this truss failure in fires from real world not NISTIAN garbled report that has been debunked a thousand fold.

Second, you left out how entropy works, and how adiabatic flame temperature that would allow a 500c -650c degree temperatures came to exist in an oxygen starved environment for the most part, which is impossible unless you have laboratory conditions or gasoline, perhaps plastics could produce this effect, but the entropy and conductive nature of steel absorbs heat and directs the heat away. Then there are the question of how people are able to peek outside the damaged area while these 500-650c degree fires are formed. Just look at other skyscraper fires. I know that those fires may not have the core structure of the WTC, because those buildings on fire were less significant in the breadth and depth of the cores in WTC 1, 2.

Third, please elaborate how those could remain standing without damage and WTCs can’t with overcompensation that is planned for by the architects. I think the architects can’t explain why it fell unless there is a design flaw, such as substandard steel.

Fourth, there is the the problem of iron rich spherules formed pre-collapse mid-air during the collapse, which suggests that iron or steel melted pre-collapse.

Lastly,

” steel in the South Tower from which the
fireproofing had been stripped could have reached the temperature of 1,000 oC (1,832 oC [sic,
should be 1,832 oF]) within 56 minutes. That inference would be absurd, even if the fires had
been as big and hot as NIST suggests, because of the enormous amount of interconnected steel in
the South Tower: some 90,000 tons. It would have taken a very long time for even some of that
steel to have been heated up to the temperature of the fire itself, even if the fire was directly
connected with 25 percent of the steel. It is absurd to suggest that this could have occurred in 56
minutes. [45]”

And…

“Underwriters Laboratories proves the steel
should have survived up to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours…”

So who’s lying Architects of the WTC, NIST or Underwriters Laboratories?

This may be my next to last post….Thank you wordgeezer, perhaps it’s adult of him to tell others to take baby steps, but a rational mind needs no such logic.

Perhaps, more research on this axial load, diagonal forces, or catenary action in other situations that are self-evident in other fire situations would help us gain better understanding of what Scheuerman is thinking? Basically, I think there isn’t a given for the collapse mechanism and NIST still has yet to issue a declarative statement about WTC 7, but I’m digressing.

I know this truss failure theory is difficult to understand without pictures and diagrams. I have several diagams in my book which help to more clearly explain the bar joist collapse mechanism but I don’t know how to transfer them to this column.
A.S.

I think the gravity of this admission escapes people. If we follow this line of thinking, that there were middle eastern hijackers, co-conspirators we have to assume, and also maintain our belief in explosives, then let’s imagine what would have been required.

Considering the fact that the collapses clearly initiated at each respective impact zone, coordination between the locations of the supposed explosives and the airliner impacts would have had to be near perfect. However, once we somehow get past this extreme implausibility in our minds, we’re immediately faced with having to believe that the explosives were able to survive the impacts and successfully go off an hour or more later …… twice.

This is why so many in the “truth” movement tie themselves in knots trying to erase the existence of the hijackers. (hijackers still alive hoax) They are an inconvenient reality that throws pesky wrenches into the whole operation, that is, when one really stops to consider how their existence can’t really believably coexist with there being explosives in the towers.

And…

“Underwriters Laboratories proves the steel
should have survived up to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours…”

So who’s lying Architects of the WTC, NIST or Underwriters Laboratories?

That’s an excellent link, T. But are you under the impression that NIST believes that the steel should have survived @2000F for six hours? No, that is what David Ray Griffin is claiming, and he has misconstrued NIST on this, as your link clearly explains.

Quote: “I think the gravity of this admission escapes people. If we follow this line of thinking, that there were middle eastern hijackers, co-conspirators we have to assume, and also maintain our belief in explosives, then let’s imagine what would have been required.”

Well, imagining scenarios that fit into your beliefs is your game. I would rather stick to the facts, of which there are many and keep My mind open. Let me know when you come up with some…G:

Thanks for your excellent posts here. I doubt that more research on catenary action ect. will give any insight into reasons for collapse for these buildings.

There is a whole lot of speculation going on here as to the temperature that was reached in the steel in the area of the fire from jet fuel. In my opinion, the best information will be from what can be found by observing the evidence, most of which has been already been carted of and melted down. If I were doing an investigation I would search all the roof tops for steel scraps and anything I could find for analysis. Large chunks of steel and even human remains have been found on some of the roof tops surrounding the WTC. This has probably been already done by private parties and in time this evidence will surface, just like the evidence found in the dust by Steven Jones.

I don’t consider the truss failure mechanism as “one small aspect” of the collapse. It is the prime cause and reason that the Towers collapsed, and it is not hard to understand. The UL tested a 17 foot length of flooring, a far cry from the 60 foot spans,- more than 3 times the length tested,- used in the Towers. I explained the length and slenderness of the trusses were important to the floor’s buckling from restrained expansion. The longer the spans the greater distance the steel expands against the columns and the greater force exerted, and the more slender the truss is the easier it buckles,-just like a column. Also the longer spans (60 foot),-when collapsing into catenaries, – exert about 3 times the pull-in forces than the short span 35 foot sides. These catenary pull-in and thermal bowing forces over the entire length of the east side of Tower 2 and the south side of Tower 1 pulled in the entire 59 columns in the perimeter walls and started the progressive collapse. Expansion and contraction are easy concepts to understand and I didn’t use any formulas. Thermal bowing is pritty straightfoward as a pull-in mechanism. The computer programs that NIST used are highly accurate, more so than using engineering formulas. If we can’t believe the scientists of NIST who spend their entire careers examining material strength than who can we trust?

Note: I forgot to explain steel contraction as a collapse cause. Contraction of a steel floor is important because when the floor sags while expanding and loosing stiffness and then contracts on cooling, this contraction exerts extreme forces on the columns. Since the steel regains its strength as it cools and contracts and the floor cannot lift the floor loads because the live loads probably slid down to the center of the sagging floors, extreme pull-in farces are exerted on the column connections. This is the possible cause of Building 7’s collapse.

After reading Quintiere’s in context, it is apparent that his stance is EVEN FURTHER from the “controlled demolition” theory than is NIST.

You didn’t include this portion below on your blog, although to your credit, you did link to the whole story:

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, HE MADE IT CLEAR HE WAS NOT A SUPPORTER OF THEORIES THAT THE TWIN TOWERS WERE BROUGHT DOWN BY PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I SUGGEST THAT THERE’S AN EQUALLY JUSTIFIABLE THEORY AND THAT’S THE TRUSSES FAIL AS THEY ARE HEATED BY THE FIRE WITH THE INSULATION INTACT. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.

What he’s saying, is that the fireproofing didn’t even need to be knocked off, and this would imply to me that he thought the fires were even hotter than NIST did. So what’s got me confused is how in the world does his stance even start to support YOUR pov, and how does it substantially differ from NIST, at least pertaining to the mechanism of collapse, putting aside the precise role/existance of the fireproofing in resisting temperature rise?

I don’t think anybody is saying that what NIST concluded is necessarily 100% accurate, but you’re going in the wrong direction in quoting this guy, are you not?

The important thing in my estimation is that Quintiere has called for a new and independent investigation. That’s what is needed and should be welcomed by all concerned. An unbiased assesment of the whole thing with all of the evidence on the table should be done asap. Do you think that Bu$hco will support this?

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let’s look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what’s the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become ‘Conspiracy Theorists’, but in a proper way,” he said.

Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

Sure. I would be fine with another investigation, like I said earlier, and perhaps it would be worthwhile reading Quintiere’s concerns. If fireproofing in buildings even undisturbed is insufficient to delay collapse as advertised, we need to know about it.

However, I’m sure another investigation would not in any way conclude that explosives were used, unless it was conducted by David Ray Griffin and Alex Jones. Would you be OK with that result?

You don’t seem to get my point. If Quintiere’s research was part of a new investigation and it influenced the result, that result would be EVEN FURTHER away from some kind of CD explanation. Are you sure YOU want a new investigation?

What exactly is your definition of “independent”? Who exactly would be allowed to participate in this new investigation?

Independence, the self-government of a nation, country, or state
Independent (politician), not affiliated with any political party
Independent (voter), not a member of any political party
Independent (religion), group active during the English Civil War
Independent city, a city that does not form part of another local government entity
Independent business, privately-owned companies
Independent bookstore, a bookstore that is not part of a chain
Independent publisher, a small press not associated with a major publisher
Independent clothes store, a boutique not associated with the larger retailers
Independent brewery, craft brewer with less than 25% owned by alcoholic beverage industry member
Independent pub, a free house that is owned independently of a brewery
Independent school, a school which is not dependent upon national or local government for financing its operation
Independent living, a philosophy of working for self-determination, self-respect and equal opportunities
Independent sources, in journalism, two or more sources which attest to a given piece of information

Quote: “You don’t seem to get my point. If Quintiere’s research was part of a new investigation and it influenced the result, that result would be EVEN FURTHER away from some kind of CD explanation. Are you sure YOU want a new investigation?”

What is your point? There are millions of people who would like a new investigation and it will involve one heck of a lot more than Dr. Quintiere’s testimony. I believe that it is you that mentioned the signifigance of physical evidence. I’m sure that I want a new investigation and glad to hear that you do too.

I’m not qualified to make such a monumental decision Nick. This decision should be made by the majority of the people who are concerned about this issue, and in a democratic way, and consist of a panel for every aspect of the investigation. This is not about a game, and winning or losing, but about finding out the truth and analysing the evidence from this historic disaster to understand more about what really happened…

BTW: I have a problem with “assume”, seems to bring “imagine” to a new level.

Thanks for the correction. Pull-in forces is correct.
Pull-in farces is a Freudian slip I must have been thinking of the CD ers.

Nick,

I know Professor Quintiere; he is a very hard working and knowledgable fire safety engineer. He has numerous quotes in my book. He and I agree on most of the important points of the Towers collapse, and he is the one that put me on to Professor Usmani’s work.

Prof. Quintiere, Prof. Usmani, and I and a few other engineers mostly overseas were the first ones to develop the truss failure theory.

Relating to the fireproofing on the trusses, the problem is not the high temperatures needed to overcome the insulation; the problem is that lower steel temperatures were sufficient to deconstruct the trusses due to restrained thermal expansion, thermal bowing, and delamination from the concrete slab, even before the steel lost much of its strength. The fires were not as hot as would be usual in such large area fires because the destruction of the vertical elevator stair and HVAC shafts and the windows allowed most of the heated ceiling gasses being produced to flow upward by the chimney effect. The removal of these heated gasses delayed flashover and lowered the initial fire temperatures. The insulation was ineffective because it was designed to protect the truss steel from loss of strength at higher temperatures, while the lower steel temperature was actually sufficient to collapse the long span trusses into suspension or initiate thermal bowing.

My apologies Arthur, I couldn’t resist it. I guess I was doing the old “them or us” thing that I keep hearing from the MSM. My interest in this subject is mainly about truth and justice, and I believe that the people are not well represented in this regard in many ways. How do you feel about an independent investigation on 911? Dr. Quintiere says “In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

A new view from the 140th floor, with the subject matter being pretty much the same as it was from the basement, with the main focus being on how the WTC buildings came down. The posts here have been interesting and informative, but I believe that it would be a good idea to broaden the subject matter, especially about initiating a new and independent investigation of the event, the physical evidence, and the testimony pertaining to 911.

There is a growing base of information on the internet involving people who were touched by this disaster and are demanding answers from Bu$hco, with no new evidence forthcoming. Indeed, what is offered to us is opinions that contradict the findings of concerned Architects, Engineers, Scientists, and professional people from all walks of life.

Let us know what your views are on a new and independent investigation…G:

It’s really great that you are willing to participate here, and I assume elsewhere. Perhaps a reason for the proliferation of these more extreme theories on 9/11 is due to the fact that most qualified people such as yourself simply aren’t willing or able to spend the time necessary to inject some common sense into the argument.

When you said you know Mr. Quintiere, it made me wonder if you also know William Manning, of “half-baked farce” fame. It seems that his theory, so often omitted by “truth” sites, is along the same lines as yours, Quintiere’s, and Usmani’s. He also, at least back in early 2002, suspected inadequate truss fireproofing:

“Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.”

He also at the time had concerns about political forces being at work, perhaps to deflect attention from the fire-proofing or design of the towers, and also I believe about evidence being destroyed.

Now this was way back even before the FEMA investigation, I believe, or at least very early into it. If you know Manning, does he still have the same concerns today? Do you share any of these concerns?

NIST claims they had plenty of steel to analyze. What is your feeling on this whole “all the evidence was shipped to China” claim we hear so often?

It seems to me that the main thing to analyze might be the rather lightweight truss steel, not so much the big columns and interior beams. But there would have been thousands of those all mangled and crumpled, and I wonder if it would have even been possible to determine their original location in the building.

Thanks for the kind words. I don’t mind the give and take. It stimulates better ideas.

Unfortunately William Manning passed away a few months ago. I am not surprised that he wanted to examine the trusses. Trusses have been a curse to Firemen because of their inclination to collapse. It’s always the first thing we look for after a collapse. We also lost Francis L. Brannigan the author of “Building Construction for the Fire Service”. He had three editions of the book and no doubt saved many lives as an educator.

The steel being carted away to china was a real loss to the investigation each piece of steel,-except the trusses and other small pieces, – had a number which could have been used to identify its exact location in the Towers. These pieces of steel could have been used to determine the progressive collapse cause and sequence and have been important evidence to gain real conviction on the exact methods to prevent collapse in the future. I think someone was trying to cover up the obvious deficiencies that existed in the Towers.

Thanks for being here and for your informative articles. Always a pleasure to discuss and always informative in context. I didn’t know the steel parts were numbered. The evidence could have revealed details that would have made all of this controversy irrelevelant. G:

Yes , with the columns being numbered with their exact location in the buildings and NIST’s ability to determine the temperature reached on these columns from paint studies and granular changes in the steel, they could have recreated the fire temperatures in various areas. With the steel deformations they could have determined which columns buckled in the fire areas and which floors buckled and pulled in those columns.
Arthur Scheuerman

In lieu of a thorough accounting and analysis of all the steel, perhaps the best hope of determining the true deficiencies of long steel truss assemblies along with their standard insulation is to pursue efforts to accurately model them and subject them to heat. (Arthur suggested this earlier)

I wonder if the “truth” community with its vast army of websites and numerous speaking tours would be willing to help raise money for this kind of effort. It’s quite possible their hopes would be dashed when fully insulated 60′ trusses sagged and distorted at surprisingly low temperatures, but at least it would show good faith in that they are truly searching for truth. And if the trusses stood firm, it would provide them with tons of talking points for years to come.

Most importantly, it would either alert or comfort those building or living with this kind of long truss construction.

Sorry to hear about Manning. I never was able to find anything written by him after those two or three articles in “Fire Engineering”. Those were pretty early on and I have always wondered how/if his thinking evolved on these matters, and how he felt about his message being commandeered by those with a completely different agenda.

Excellent idea! We could find out what spans of trusses would collapse and what spans are safe. We could determine any possible insulation type and thicknesses that would make the trusses safe. We could also determine exactly the pull-in forces for different spans in order to compensate with connection strength, lateral force resistance in the construction design. Long span steel “I” beams should also be tested.

Such tests would be very expensive, and the most efficient way might be to make multi-story mock ups of the buildings since building a furnace to handle 60 foot spans might be even more expensive, but I don’t know which approach would be more effective. I think the expense is a governmental responsibility and that NIST would have the expertise and ability. I can see no difficulty in NIST’s accepting donations for such a project.

Reading part of the NIST report, I just discovered that there actually was an “independent investigation”, of sorts:

6.7 COMMENTS CONCERNING CONTRACT TO WISS, JANNEY, ELSTNER

Consulting engineers from Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. (WJE) provided NIST investigators with an independent evaluation of the steel recovered from the WTC site. This report, concentrating on failure mode observations and indications of fire exposure to the structural steel, is appended to NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. The conclusions drawn by the WJE team were in general agreement with the findings of the NIST Investigation team, with a few specific examples of disagreement that are discussed in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C in light of additional forensic evidence developed by NIST and not available to the WJE team at the time of their examinations.

Upon PennWell’s acquisition of the Fire Department Instructors Conference (FDIC) in 1996, Bill assumed the role of conference director and was the driving force in building that training program and trade show into the world’s largest event of its type.
Bill Manning is a principal and vice president for business development for Anderson Manning Media Group, and in conjunction with that company he will continue to provide media consulting and conference organization and direction activities.
Manning has 25 years of experience in publishing and conferences. In addition to his work as Fire Engineering’s editor in chief, he has scripted and produced numerous training videos, has launched two startup publications and numerous ancillary publications, and has been the creative force behind a score of large, live media events. Recently he has assisted in creating a firefighter safety video series for the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation.
His “Sea of Blue” tribute poem, written for and delivered at the 2002 National Fallen Firefighters Memorial Service in Washington, D.C., is now a staple of that service each year.

Well, this thread looks cold, but it gives one a chance to look things over… and there is a LOT to look over. Maybe too much. Much is lost (and can be hidden) in an overdose of detail. I’m thinking that was one factor counted on by some of the more ‘militant’ commenters.

To properly examine all of the links and the information provided, would take days, even longer for an untrained person to fathom what’s being presented. I’m in favor of a larger view, not losing site of the obvious improbabilities of not one, but two large structures coming down (some might say conveniently) into a relatively small and compact area for collection and disposal, advantageous for eliminating any incriminating evidence of covert activity, while the public is in “shock and awe” and in no presence of mind to ask questions. As Mr. S. pointed out:

“The steel being carted away to china was a real loss to the investigation each piece of steel,-except the trusses and other small pieces, – had a number which could have been used to identify its exact location in the Towers. These pieces of steel could have been used to determine the progressive collapse cause and sequence and have been important evidence to gain real conviction on the exact methods to prevent collapse in the future. I think someone was trying to cover up the obvious deficiencies that existed in the Towers.”

Indeed. This blog debate probably need not have ever have taken place, if proper procedure had been followed, but then, they had a war to get to, and $$$ to make. Okay… it’s never about $$$, it’s always about justice. 😉

I noticed that toward the end, the incurably idealistic and faithful to the king, as is quite common in this species, felt they had to resort to the ‘patriotic’ gambit, when they felt that reason was getting nowhere, it was time to lay the classic guilt trip upon their adversary, that by questioning authority, you’re not appreciative of or that you even love your country. I call it the ‘Hannity/Colmes Maneuvre’.

Not being an American, I’m immune to that accusation. 🙂

Another unspoken statement here is you must be an engineer to understand the truth. You’re not even qualified to ask questions, just accept whatever the “official” story is, and shut the hell up, and go sign up at your nearest recruiting centre to help out the “war on turrur.” That’s what any REAL patriot does, so do it, or be vilified.

Again, I am immune.

Knowing like I do the character of totalitarianism and it’s various adherents, whom, of course, never reveal themselves but only through their puppet politicians and bureaucrats, their plans for instigating a war with the Middle East go far back beyond the events of six years ago. I’ll wager that most of those opposed to any government conspiracy, here, never even heard of the word until 9/11, yet they assume themselves knowledgeable on the subject. I am, being that I have been studying esoteric phenomena for nearly 30 years.

Mr. S. has a lot of knowledge, and much of it could never be disputed simply because of all of the unknown physical events happening within those towers. So I’m focusing what happened on the outside, and what was plainly observed by many… all over the world!

Anyone knows that a building being imploded must be prepared in a time-consuming way. A fire official admitted that WTC-7 was “pulled” meaning deliberately demolished. It came down in classic fashion, the same way the big ‘uns did. Point is, it was admittedly “pulled” and that takes time to do. Time they didn’t have on 9/11. So, if they could prepare WTC-7, why not WTC-1 and 2?

What I got from the lengthy analysis was those buildings should have gone everywhere but where they did, especially after a violent lateral force being exerted on it, i.e. aircraft collision. If not, then why not sections of it going here and there, but not en masse, straight down like they did? And BOTH doing the same thing, under different stressors? Talk about idealism!

Mr. S. is publishing a book. I’ll bet that will be easy, with the government nodding in his favor. I know of individuals not being able to publish contrary views, but when you have the major publishing houses in your back pocket, (and the media) any favorable commentary on government rhetoric wouldn’t encounter any resistance.

Throughout history, totalitarians have always enlisted the masses to oppose their enemies; a relative few that understand what the elitist agenda is, and one of the ways this is done is by public vilification and character assassination of “truthers.” The dupe majority don’t even know they are being played like cheap violins, and are aiding the elitists in their plans for world domination.

There, I said it. Now, just wait! That is what the shills and naysayers always wait for, that phrase “world domination.” As soon as they see it, they pounce! The cry of “nut case” goes up, and the dupes attack with slander and other lowbrow insults. They never seem to tire of that tactic, and, conversely, it never has any effect on the hardened warriors for truth. Just wait… it’ll come…

Glad you dropped by and had a good look around UH. It’s true, there’s not much going on here, but that seems to be the objective of some of the visitors anyway.
Nothing really needs to be proven about what went happened on that fateful day. All that is really necessary is to do the laundry and let it air out in the light of day.

These buildings didn’t come down, – “(some might say conveniently) into a relatively small and compact area for collection and disposal”. Tower 1 and 2 had most of their outer wall columns fell or pealed outwards and landed some distance away destroying many buildings. Some of them hit Building 7 which was some distance from Tower 1. The reason the columns, – both perimeter wall and core columns, – broke up into pieces is because of the weak column splices. Most of the exterior box columns had 4 bolts connecting them together and some of the bolts were even missing. Most of the core columns had “minimal erection splices” welded butt to butt.

I am not saying anything about a Government conspiracy because I just don’t know enough. There is certainly a lot of evidence for it. I am saying that the buildings were not taken down by explosives.

Building 7 came straight down because the interior columns failed first, apparently from floor beams expanding and sagging under heat and then contracting upon cooling and pulling the interior columns out of plumb. The lower portions of the exterior walls buckled either from floors pulling them inward or from the debris from the interior collapse impacting these lower column walls.

San Francisco architect Richard Gage sees the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s current position on 9-11 as an absurd “smoke and mirrors” show that further reveals that NIST never inquired about how the World Trade Center’s twin towers were destroyed on 9/11/01, and that NIST admits to not having any answers on what actually caused the “global collapse.”

NIST’s latest position on the towers is spelled out in a recent letter sent by NIST to Gage, former Underwriter’s Laboratories scientist Kevin Ryan, 9-11 surviving family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, former Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones, and the group Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. The letter was in response to a request by Gage and the others for corrections to NIST’s infamous 10,000-page report on the towers.

NIST denied their requests for changes. The letter states: “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse. . . .”

NIST stated that it found “no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” But in the next sentence the letter says: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”

Gage, a leading member of the growing group Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, told AFP that NIST, in its response to requests for corrections: “Acknowledges that they don’t have a plausible explanation as to how the buildings could have collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, due to only gravitational forces, crushing tons of structural steel that was designed to resist that load.”

He added: “Those columns had to have been removed a fraction of a second prior to each floor coming down,” which could only be done with explosives in a coordinated demolition, as Gage recently explained in a detailed presentation at New York City’s Cooper Union and at nearby Webster Hall.

He added that it’s amazing that the towers came down “through the path of greatest resistance without tipping over,” and yet NIST spent 10,000 pages in its major report (2005) only covering the events leading up to the collapse.

“NIST stopped its entire 10,000-page analysis at the point of initiation of collapse,” exclaimed Gage, who pointed out that NIST did not calculate the weight of the buildings’ mass versus the resistance that the dozens of floors below the jet impacts would have provided against a potential collapse.

“And it’s a simple calculation,” Gage told AFP. Gage pointed out that NIST doesn’t even attempt to go beyond the point of collapse initiation because they cannot explain the varied evidence of explosives being used at the WTC, including the lateral ejection of massive steel beams that were blown up to 500 feet away from the towers.

Tremendous force would be needed to do that. And Prof. Jones announced in March 2007 that he found the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate in WTC building materials. Ryan, who was fired from his UL job after raising concerns over serious flaws in NIST’s inquiry, has noted in scientific papers and speeches that fireproofed structural steel easily withstands relatively brief jet-fuel fires and neither melts nor collapses in such an environment.

Gage said there are about 100 cases around the world of high-rise steel framed buildings burning much hotter for at least five hours, and indeed up to 18 hours, without collapsing.

Yet the WTC south tower, which was hit by something second, fell first in just 52 minutes. The north tower fell later after burning just 102 minutes. And the south tower was just nicked by the plane.

Gage has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel framed buildings. He became interested in the 9-11 WTC high-rise “collapses” after hearing the startling conclusions of 9-11 researcher David Ray Griffin. (See AFP’s insert this week, page B-4, for a new 9-11 video from Griffin.)

Gage told AFP an appeal is being filed regarding the IST response to the Request for Correction sent to NIST by Gage and other experts.

What became the World Trade Center was initiated in 1960 by a Lower Manhattan association created and chaired by David Rockefeller. The 110-story north and south towers were part of the WTC complex consisting of seven buildings on 16 acres. At 1,368 and 1,362 feet, the north and south towers were the world’s tallest buildings for a short time, snatching the title from the Empire State Building.

The other five WTC complex buildings were constructed throughout the 1970s and ’80s.WTC 7, being the last in 1985, was, of course, the one that fell into its own footprint in the exact manner of a controlled demolition on 9/11/01, but which was never even hit by a plane that day and only suffered relatively minor fires.

While the cataclysmic nature of the twin towers’ destruction and the precise collapse of WTC 7 all point to an organized inside attack on the complex, even more startling is the fact that an intense six-floor fire on the 11th story of the north tower erupted on Feb. 13, 1975 and burned for more than three hours, hot enough to prompt Capt. Harold Kull of NYFD Engine No. 6 to tell The New York Times, “It was like fighting a blowtorch.”

The fire, estimated to exceed 700 degrees Celsius, was hot enough to blow out windows on the 11th floor’s east side, from which flames were seen shooting out. None of the steel trusses was even replaced; at no time could the entire building have collapsed.

As Gage, Prof. Jones and many others interviewed by AFP have noted, Americans are supposed to believe that the heat from burning jet fuel was hot enough to not only weaken structural steel but bring about a “global collapse” of both towers. As noted, the north tower on 9-11 burned for less than two hours, and the other tower was destroyed after burning for less than an hour. There is no solid evidence that the fires exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit for any length of time.

So, hot fires not only have failed to bring down other steel-framed, high-rise buildings; fire specifically failed to bring down the north tower itself in 1975. And WTC designers built the towers to withstand the impact of jet airliners comparable in size to commercial jets used today.

The inclusion of this design characteristic was prompted in part by the events of July 28, 1945, when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building, igniting a high octane jet-fuel fire that killed 14 and caused considerable physical damage, but it didn’t even come close to bringing down the building.

AFP correspondent Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com. Look for additional reports from Mark in upcoming AFP issues on domestic issues of vital import.

San Francisco architect Richard Gage sees the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s current position on 9-11 as an absurd “smoke and mirrors” show that further reveals that NIST never inquired about how the World Trade Center’s twin towers were destroyed on 9/11/01, and that NIST admits to not having any answers on what actually caused the “global collapse.” NIST spent most of its time trying to answer that one question “What actually caused the global collapse.”

REPLY: They had several mistarts but they finally concluded that the floors collapsed into suspension (catenaries) or were subject to thermal bowing both of which conditions caused pull-in forces on the perimeter walls. This floor pull-in was sufficient to buckle the perimeter columns inward on the long span sides of the Towers. Once one entire perimeter wall buckled the building began leaning over and transferred its weight to adjacent columns which buckled sequentially due to overloads. NIST was very clear as to what they concluded was the cause of the collapses. What they didn’t analyze is the chaotic collisions of floors, walls and heavy columns that occurred after the Towers began collapsing. Analyzing this was beyond the capacity of any computer in existence and was unnecessary anyway.

The exterior columns fell outward. That the only way they could have fallen with the floors impacting each other and breaking the single bolt connections to these columns. In a thousand, 3 hundred foot building to have the heavy outer wall columns fall outward 600 feet is not hard to believe. What if these walls fell flat out they would have reached over a thousand feet from the base. We used to have a rule of thumb in the FD that a brick wall would only fall outward one third of its height. This was the rule until the fire on Jay St. in Brooklyn one night. The walls inclosing this huge Mill constructed brick and wood joist building were so thick and strong that they fell flat outward and hit the building across the street flattening several fire engines in the Streets. We very quickly changed the rule.

NIST’s latest position on the towers is spelled out in a recent letter sent by NIST to Gage, former Underwriter’s Laboratories scientist Kevin Ryan, 9-11 surviving family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, former Brigham Young University physicist Steven Jones, and the group Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice. The letter was in response to a request by Gage and the others for corrections to NIST’s infamous 10,000-page report on the towers.

NIST denied their requests for changes. The letter states: “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse. . . .”

NIST stated that it found “no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” But in the next sentence the letter says: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue and as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.”

Gage, a leading member of the growing group Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, told AFP that NIST, in its response to requests for corrections: “Acknowledges that they don’t have a plausible explanation as to how the buildings could have collapsed at virtually free-fall speed, due to only gravitational forces, crushing tons of structural steel that was designed to resist that load.”

He added: “Those columns had to have been removed a fraction of a second prior to each floor coming down,” which could only be done with explosives in a coordinated demolition, as Gage recently explained in a detailed presentation at New York City’s Cooper Union and at nearby Webster Hall.

REPLY ;The columns buckled they weren’t ‘removed’. I attended Richard Gages lecture and he didn’t even know that the exterior columns were bolted together at the splices. This was clearly explained by NIST and FEMA in its Building Performance Study. I don’t think that Gage read either one of these primary reports. Every thing he said at his lecture was questionable.

He added that it’s amazing that the towers came down “through the path of greatest resistance without tipping over,” and yet NIST spent 10,000 pages in its major report (2005) only covering the events leading up to the collapse. Actually Both Towers first tipped over to the sides where the perimeter walls were photographed bowing inward well before the collapses began.

“NIST stopped its entire 10,000-page analysis at the point of initiation of collapse,” exclaimed Gage, who pointed out that NIST did not calculate the weight of the buildings’ mass versus the resistance that the dozens of floors below the jet impacts would have provided against a potential collapse.

“And it’s a simple calculation,” Gage told AFP. Gage pointed out that NIST doesn’t even attempt to go beyond the point of collapse initiation because they cannot explain the varied evidence of explosives being used at the WTC, including the lateral ejection of massive steel beams that were blown up to 500 feet away from the towers.

REPLY ; These were not beams they were the exterior columns that fell or pealed outwards. These heavy columns in the act of pealing away from the building might have broken the connections to the floors before the accumulating mass of impacted floors hit these connections. If this happened than the floors may have been disconnected at faster than free fall speeds.

Tremendous force would be needed to do that. And Prof. Jones announced in March 2007 that he found the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate in WTC building materials. Ryan, who was fired from his UL job after raising concerns over serious flaws in NIST’s inquiry, has noted in scientific papers and speeches that fireproofed structural steel easily withstands relatively brief jet-fuel fires and neither melts nor collapses in such an environment.

REPLY : Ryan was not a fire protection engineer. He was working in the water analysis division of UL. The floor tested by UL was 17 feet long. The actual floors that collapsed into suspension were more three times that span. The reason for collapse was not because the steel weakened. Thermal expansion in the slender, long span floors caused them to buckle or bow. The pull-in force on truss floors that collapse into catenaries increase as the square of the span. The 60 foot span floors that collapsed produce more than three times the pull-in force as the 35 foot span floors.

Gage said there are about 100 cases around the world of high-rise steel framed buildings burning much hotter for at least five hours, and indeed up to 18 hours, without collapsing, but they were not built like the Towers.

Yet the WTC south tower, which was hit by something second, fell first in just 52 minutes. The north tower fell later after burning just 102 minutes. And the south tower was just nicked by the plane.

REPLY : The plane went right into the South Tower. We could hardly call that being nicked. The South Tower had less fireproofing on the trusses than the North Tower. This is proposed as the reason the South Tower fell in about half the time.

Gage has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel framed buildings. He became interested in the 9-11 WTC high-rise “collapses” after hearing the startling conclusions of 9-11 researcher David Ray Griffin.

REPLY: Apparently David Ray Griffen was the only author that Gage read or listened to.

Gage told AFP an appeal is being filed regarding the IST response to the Request for Correction sent to NIST by Gage and other experts.

What became the World Trade Center was initiated in 1960 by a Lower Manhattan association created and chaired by David Rockefeller. The 110-story north and south towers were part of the WTC complex consisting of seven buildings on 16 acres. At 1,368 and 1,362 feet, the north and south towers were the world’s tallest buildings for a short time, snatching the title from the Empire State Building.

The other five WTC complex buildings were constructed throughout the 1970s and ’80s.WTC 7, being the last in 1985, was, of course, the one that fell into its own footprint in the exact manner of a controlled demolition on 9/11/01, but which was never even hit by a plane that day and only suffered relatively minor fires.

REPLY: The fires in Building 7 were serious, so serious that the building was evacuated and everybody removed from the collapse zone which included the adjacent buildings and streets.

While the cataclysmic nature of the twin towers’ destruction and the precise collapse of WTC 7 all point to an organized inside attack on the complex, even more startling is the fact that an intense six-floor fire on the 11th story of the north tower erupted on Feb. 13, 1975 and burned for more than three hours, hot enough to prompt Capt. Harold Kull of NYFD Engine No. 6 to tell The New York Times, “It was like fighting a blowtorch.”

REPLY: The difference is that fire was being fought by the Fire Department and no doubt the steel was being cooled; even so several of the trusses had buckled top chords and deck support angles.

The fire, estimated to exceed 700 degrees Celsius, was hot enough to blow out windows on the 11th floor’s east side, from which flames were seen shooting out. None of the steel trusses was even replaced; at no time could the entire building have collapsed.

REPLY: I think the Fire Dept prevented collapse by limiting the size of the fire and cooling the trusses.

As Gage, Prof. Jones and many others interviewed by AFP have noted, Americans are supposed to believe that the heat from burning jet fuel was hot enough to not only weaken structural steel but bring about a “global collapse” of both towers. As noted, the north tower on 9-11 burned for less than two hours, and the other tower was destroyed after burning for less than an hour. There is no solid evidence that the fires exceeded 500 degrees Fahrenheit for any length of time.

REPLY: The trusses failed from restrained thermal expansion which occurs immediately as the steel is heated and at lower temperatures than are required to weaken the steel. Differential expansion in the truss chords and slab caused delamination of the concrete slab and top truss chord. This caused loss of composite action which allows collapse of the truss into a catenary (like a cable in suspension). The diagonal struts also buckled in the long span floors because of the shear forces created by differential expansion between the chords. When the bottom chord expands faster than the top chord it causes thermal bowing and the tension in the bottom chord is relaxed allowing the top cool chord to sag into suspension. Thermal bowing causes immediate pull-in forces on the columns.

So, hot fires not only have failed to bring down other steel-framed, high-rise buildings; fire specifically failed to bring down the north tower itself in 1975. And WTC designers built the towers to withstand the impact of jet airliners comparable in size to commercial jets used today.

The inclusion of this design characteristic was prompted in part by the events of July 28, 1945, when a B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building, igniting a high octane jet-fuel fire that killed 14 and caused considerable physical damage, but it didn’t even come close to bringing down the building.

REPLY: The Empire State Building, – one of the safest buildings in the city,- was built to the old 1938 codes before the real estate industry decided making money is more important than life safety and decimated the codes.

Its amazing that the Architects and Engineers don’t want to know what caused the collapse they want to know how the building fell after collapse began. Those buildings were apparently built like a house of cards; weak connections, no back up structure to arrest a progressive collapse, no lateral support in the core, wide open areas with no columns, use of bar joist trusses in a high rise building. Such cheap truss construction is used in one story supermarkets, etc.

In such large high ries buildings you better prevent collapse from beginning. After collapse began total collapse was inevitable in these buildings.

The architects should attempt to discover the weaknesses in such buildings in an attempt to correct them rather than avoid responsibility by blaming the collapses on wild speculations like controlled demolition, laser beams, thermite, bombs etc. All these speculations arrise because the Architects have difficulty in admitting that they must take some responsibility.

QUOTE: “Its amazing that the Architects and Engineers don’t want to know what caused the collapse they want to know how the building fell after collapse began. Those buildings were apparently built like a house of cards; weak connections, no back up structure to arrest a progressive collapse, no lateral support in the core, wide open areas with no columns, use of bar joist trusses in a high rise building. Such cheap truss construction is used in one story supermarkets, etc.

In such large high ries buildings you better prevent collapse from beginning. After collapse began total collapse was inevitable in these buildings.”

REPLY: TEXT‘>The design concept of tubular framing (the so-called tube within a tube architecture) has been employed in the construction of many of the world’s tallest buildings. These include the John Hancock Center (1105 ft), the Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft), the World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft), and the Sears Tower (1450 ft). In fact, most modern skyscrapers use this design, a design which uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The lateral loading (horizontal force) on the building, is mainly due to the wind while the gravity loading (downward force) is due to the weight of the building (i.e., due to gravity).

Do these tube framed buildings have lightweight trusses with inadequate fireproofing, long spans with large open areas which allow larger fires and large areas of the building to be exposed to these fires, long span, slender floors subject to thermal expansion and delamination of the concrete slab, buckling or thermal bowing causing strong pull-in forces on the columns, weak floor connections allowing detachment and pancake collapses, weak column splices allowing the floors to pull in the walls and the core columns that buckle when exposed to lateral forces, open stairways allowing fire to spread upward to many floors, plaster board stairway and elevator enclosures ?

I think the cause of the primary cause of the start of the collapse was well explained above. To summarize, it was the failure of the lightweight, long span trusses over several floors that collapsed into catenaries or thermally bowed and pulled in the exterior wall on one long span side of each Tower. The peeling or falling away of the exterior walls didn’t start until a large accumulation of impacted floors and heavy core columns began falling through the center of the building right down to bedrock.

The question as to weather the manner of collapse, after the collapse starts, is all that important depends on whether progressive collapse is inevitable in any particular building, after all the columns buckle on one floor. The question becomes; could any steel building withstand the 20 or so stories accelerating downward due to gravity and impacting the lower section. The scientific studies seem to indicate that the momentum of the falling upper section would obliterate any present day, steel structure. So the primary cause of the collapse initiation becomes all important in the prevention of global collapse. So we have to go back to the long span steel trusses and the strength of the steel columns and their lateral support.

Bu$hco has not been held accountable for any of the pre-emptive moves and outright lies that we’re used to bring America to war with two countries. Dubya has used the 911 disaster to bankrupt our country and brought dishonor on our country for his unilateral attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq.

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 – As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush’ and Vice President Cheney’s actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001.

WTC 7 housed the mayor’s emergency bunker and offices of the SEC, IRS, CIA and Secret Service and was not hit by any planes but still completely collapsed into its own footprint nearly eight hours after the Twin Tower attacks. FEMA did not explain this collapse, the 911 Commission ignored it, and the promised official study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is now 2 years overdue.

How do you feel about having Rudy Giuliani running for presidential office while he is involved in the 911 disaster? He, for one thing, is on video talking about how he was told that the World Trade Center would collapse and for another thing; The firemen demonstrated against him for not allowing them to search for their brothers in the rubble, so the steel and aluminum could be hauled from the sight and scrapped, in spite of the calls for saving it for investigation…G:

It is indeed a shame that either one of them are involved with leadership of our government. Money and power is the name of their game and media control is the secret of their fame. In reality neither one of them could even be a decent used car salesman, especially the one with a smallest brain.

“I don’t think you understand the weight involved in one of these high rise buildings.”

The weight of the high rise buildings are exactly why the top part could not fall down through the much more massive lower part almost as if through air.

You also state that NIST is excused from analysing the “collapse” beyond the point that “global collapse ensued,” because “after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately by even the strongest computers.”

Please. NIST was supposed to explain what happened, and their only explanation is this tautology: “Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. ”

Are you aware that the bottom 20 floors had 5-15 times the mass of steel of the top 20 floors? The building was progressively stronger going down, and the impact would be absorbed into the falling structure, not just the impacted structure. It doesn’ take a computer to see the obvious, nor would a computer model need to be exact to rule out the absurd.

In order for the columns to support the weight they have to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. If the columns get out of plumb or buckle they can no longer support the weight. The buildings collapsed because the floors buckled from restrained thermal expansion and thermal bowing affecting truss stability. The sagging and/or bowing trusses pulled in the columns in one exterior wall and buckled them. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling sequentially all the columns across the building. Once the tilted building began descending it hit the floors or columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the lower columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any resistance to the falling building top the columns would have to hit each other exactly in line and in plumb and this was impossible with the chaotic angles of impact.

In my opinion the NIST investigation appears to be inadequate and a new investigation should be opened.
The fact that Bu$hco will not recognise this in any way shape or form can mean only one thing, but I digress again…):

Ok. I should have used the word eccentric for the ‘angles of impact’ in my last sentence. That still doesn’t cancel out the fact that columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. The adjacent exterior wall columns in Tower 2 buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have eventually buckled. These columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. With all the columns across the building buckled the top section began descending at an angle to the building section below. None of the columns would have been axially lined up. As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated to bedrock

“Building 7 was built over an existing Consolidated Edison power station. Above the seventh floor, the construction was very similar to that of the towers: with long-span outer floors, large open areas, unknown fireproofing on the steel, little lateral bracing in the core, and most likely weak column splicing.”
—————-
In fig. 24 A- North Elevation the drawing shows concrete all the way to floor 5. Is this a mistake? Looking at it from the West Elevation I have to assume that it only went to floor three. However, from the drawings, it does look like heavy duty construction below floor seven, which just happens to be where fire occurs along with floor twelve. This fire is directly above the Con-Ed Station.

What happened to the Con-Ed station, like where is it? Look at the upper part of this aerial view of what is left of WTC7. This is an incredible amount of destruction for a floor collapse in my opinion…G:

The fire pictured in my report was on floor 7, not “below floor 7”, Floor 7 was a heavily reinforced diaphragm floor like floor 5 and I doubt the fire could have burned down through it.. The Con Edison generating station was on the north side.

I imagine the Con Edison station was destroyed after the 47 story building fell on it. The “floor collapse” pulled in the 3 interior key columns on the east side and, -since columns are superimposed, -the collapse traveled up to the top of the building putting all these upper floors into suspension (tension) which pulled the remaining core columns to the east. After the west core columns failed the entire interior of the building collapsed.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions – Supplement (December 14, 2007)

Since the release of the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in October 2005, NIST has received many questions from interested readers curious about NIST’s findings and the technical basis for them. The complexity of the investigation and the length of the final report (including all of the supporting volumes) have made understanding of the investigation a challenge for many interested readers. In response, NIST has prepared simplified answers to the most frequently asked questions.
1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case).

REPLY: Using vertical capacity may not be realistic. NIST reported that if one long span floor detached and impacted the floor below that it would cause the loss of composite action and induce catenary action in the impacted floor and if the lower floor were heated to more than 400 C the joist-bearing end would walk off the interior seat.

Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

REPLY: Using just vertical capacity NIST fails to include that from its own analysis -“The weight of additional debris on an intact floor (with no impact) showed that the knuckles in a cool floor start failing when the load factor is 2.4 X the floors weight. Most knuckles fail before the load factor reaches 3.” ( Appendix K, 57) The knuckles are the extensions of the bent-over tops of the diagonal bars extending through the top chord in the bar joist trusses. The knuckles were designed to provide shear transfer and composite action under load between the concrete and steel. Long span bar joist failure can be caused by concrete slab and knuckle detachment. By this method detachment of a floor falling on to the floor below can cause two times the static pull-in forces on the floor below from catenary action if composite action is compromised. This can also dynamically put extra lateral force on the connections.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
2. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?
Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.
In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).
After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.
3. How does NIST explain the absence of a timeline for the WTC Towers?
NIST developed and reported detailed timelines for various aspects of the WTC disaster beginning with the impact of the aircraft. These timelines included the progression of fires through the buildings, the response of the structure to damage and to fire, egress of occupants from the towers, and the emergency response. The timelines were developed based on extensive analysis of the photographic and video evidence, analysis of computer models, first person interviews, radio transmissions, and other data documenting the events of September 11, 2001. A general timeline for each of the towers is reported in NIST NCSTAR 1. Detailed timelines for specific aspects of the WTC disaster are reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-2, 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8.
4. Why was physical evidence not collected immediately following the collapse of the WTC Towers?
The complete collapse of the WTC Towers destroyed virtually all physical evidence except the major pieces of steel and mechanical equipment. In the initial days and weeks following the WTC disaster, the emphasis was on rescue and later on recovery, necessitating the removal of steel and disturbing the collapse site. FEMA, which had launched its Building Performance Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it did in August 2002. NIST did not receive the legal authority to collect and preserve physical evidence from a disaster/failure site until the National Construction Safety Team Act became law in October 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site.
5. How did NIST derive the temperatures in the WTC Towers and how valid are they?
Using all the visual and physical evidence available, NIST conducted simulations of the fires in each of the towers from the time of airplane impact to the collapses. The computational model used to simulate the fires was the Fire Dynamics Simulator. This model had been validated in numerous experiments and fire recreations prior to the World Trade Center Investigation. Additional large-scale experiments conducted during the Investigation (NIST NCSTAR 1-5) provided further assurance of the validity of the model output. This output was in the form of maps of the air temperatures on each of the floors over the duration of the fires (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F).
In a following set of computations using the Fire Structure Interface, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).
Both sets of computations are based on the fundamental laws of combustion, heat transfer, and air flow. The methods have been documented extensively and have been successfully subjected to technical peer review and published in professional journals.
6. At least one private sector source has asked (1) Whether the Commerce Department’s legal structure impeded NIST’s ability to obtain information and therefore prevented NIST from finding the facts; and (2) Why NIST did not use its subpoena authority?
No. The Commerce Department’s legal structure facilitated NIST’s ability to obtain valuable information and evidence for the investigation.
NIST is required to comply with laws regarding the treatment of human subjects, the Paperwork Reduction Act, copyright, and other applicable laws. NIST is also required to comply with the provisions of the National Construction Safety Team Act. Therefore, NIST staff followed all the prescribed procedures when seeking to acquire relevant documents, interview building occupants and first responders, and acquire visual evidence. NIST has stated publicly that although documentary information was lost in the collapse of the WTC Towers, the information obtained from other sources was sufficient to conduct its investigation.
Under the National Construction Safety Team Act, NIST was granted subpoena authority. NIST’s experience during the investigation was that it was able to obtain all essential documentary and visual evidence without the need to invoke subpoena authority. The existence of subpoena authority was helpful to NIST in getting access to data.
7. Why did NIST not conduct large-scale/small-scale tests to evaluate the response of the WTC Towers structures to the aircraft impact and the fires in the buildings?
For studying the impact on a 110 story building by an actual Boeing 767 aircraft, a full-scale test was not feasible. For a test to capture the response of the towers as a system, it would have been necessary to construct a test assembly that included the core columns, exterior columns, floors and hat truss. Even to replicate experimentally the response of the floors near and above the impact zones would have required test assemblies of about 20 stories for WTC 1 and 30 stories for WTC 2. No facility exists to conduct such a test, either with fire or in the absence of fire; and, indeed, such tests are not conducted in current engineering practice.
Therefore, NIST relied on high-fidelity finite element modeling of the aircraft impact event and subsequent fires. The analyses were calibrated against the observed structural response of the towers upon impact (videos, photographs, and physical evidence) and the evolution of the ensuing fires.
NIST did not conduct reduced scale system-level tests because there are no generally accepted scaling laws that apply to fire propagation, temperature evolution, and structural response.
Furthermore, fire test facilities with the capability to apply arbitrary fire exposures (in contrast to the standard time-temperature exposure) and arbitrary loads to structural components did not exist in the U.S. at the time of the investigation. Even had such a facility been existent, each large-scale structural fire test would have evaluated only a single set of conditions, e.g., structural system, fire exposure, amount of fireproofing, etc. Even a modest parametric series of such tests would have been prohibitively expensive.
REPLY: A 60 foot by 60 foot test on just one bar joist floor assembly could offer invaluable information on the mechanism of collapse and the forces acting on the columns. According to Prof. Quintiere; ‘A full scale test of one floor would have gone a long way to establish credibility in modeling’ A full scale three of four story mock up of just a quarter of the floor area could give a good representation of what the heat effects would be on a long span, bar joist floors. Failure times along with pull-in forces could be verified.
NIST did conduct full-scale fire tests of single and multiple workstations. These tests were of sufficient size to properly capture the combustion physics. These tests established burning histories, mass burning rates, and heat release rates. The results were used to validate the fire dynamics calculations for fire growth and spread. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E. NIST also conducted full-scale fire tests exposing insulated and bare structural elements to real fires to validate the fire and thermal modeling approaches. See NIST NCSTAR 1-5B.
8. Why did NIST conduct ASTM E119 testing of floor systems that were not representative of the condition of the fireproofing on September 11, 2001? Why did NIST ignore the results of these tests, which showed that the floor system did not collapse, in its analysis of the thermal-structural response of the towers?
NIST’s review of available documents related to the design and construction of the WTC Towers indicated that the fire performance of the composite floor system was an issue of concern to the building owners and designers from the original design and throughout the service life of the buildings (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A). NIST found no evidence to determine the technical basis for the selection of fireproofing material for the WTC floor trusses and of the fireproofing thickness to achieve a 2 hour rating. Further, NIST found no evidence that fire resistance tests of the WTC Towers’ floor system were ever conducted.

REPLY: Kevin Ryan of the UL reported that tests were conducted by UL on the bar joist floors. These tests must have been done in secret, but since these tests were done on floors less than one third (17 feet) of the span of the actual floors (60 feet) I doubt they would offer any valid results.

Therefore, NIST conducted a series of four Standard Fire Tests (ASTM E 119) for the following purposes, as stated clearly in NIST NCSTAR 1-6B:
• to establish the baseline performance of the floor system of the WTC Towers as they were originally built,

REPLY: Except for the 60 foot spans which were not tested.

• to differentiate the factors (thermal restraint, fireproofing thickness, and scale of test) that most influenced the collapse of the WTC Towers as they may relate to normal building and fire safety considerations and those unique to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and
• to study the procedures and practices used to accept an innovative (at the time) structural and fireproofing system.
The thickness of fireproofing material used in this series of four tests ranged from ½ in. to ¾ in. This range of thickness was, indeed, consistent with the thickness of fireproofing as originally applied to the floor steel in the WTC Towers,

REPLY: NIST didn’t include in their models the pieces of SFRM knocked off by other trades working in the truss voids and the apparent sparse fireproofing applied to the bottom and the top chords which couldn’t be measured because ‘it was too sparse’.

NIST concluded from its aircraft impact analyses (NIST NCSTAR 1-2) that the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel traveling, initially, over 500 miles per hour (700 ft/s) (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D). Since the test assemblies for all four Standard Fire Tests were protected with sprayed fire-resistant material (SFRM), conclusions could not be drawn for the response of the WTC Towers to the fires on September 11, 2001, because the aircraft impact resulted in there having been unprotected steel in the fire-affected region.
The fire-affected floors in WTC 2 had the originally applied fireproofing, which was specified to be ½ in. and averaged approximately ¾ in. in thickness. The fire-affected floors of WTC 1 had upgraded fireproofing on the order of 2½ in. thickness. However, the fireproofing thickness did not matter, since much of the fireproofing was dislodged as a result of the aircraft debris and dispersed fuel,

REPLY: The south side of Tower 1 which according to NIST in their “least serious” case, had little fireproofing removed from the trusses Because the plane hit the north side, this is just the side that that would be most protected from impact damage by the core and it’s the side that had its south exterior wall buckling inward up to 55 inches just before the top of the building tilted to the south. NIST should have assumed that the fireproofing remained intact so just the fires effects could have been modeled and building code regulations could be reasonably amended.

9. NIST conducted a single workstation burn and a multiple workstation burn as a part of its investigation. Why did NIST only provide temperature data for one of these tests? Was the ventilation used in these tests representative of the ventilation that was present in the WTC Towers on September 11, 2001?
As documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5C, a series of tests of single workstations was conducted to gain an appreciation for the open burning behavior and the general effect of jet fuel. The principal quantity measured was the rate of heat release. This quantity, combined with the ventilation, heat losses to walls, etc., determines the temperatures that would be reached if the workstation were burned in an actual fire. NIST NCSTAR 1-5C contains the heat release rate curves from all of the single workstation fires. The series of multiple workstation fire tests, conducted in a replication of part of a WTC floor, is fully documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-5E. In these tests, the window openings were close to the same size and layout as in the fire floors in the towers. There was no glass in the windows, replicating the broken windows seen in the photographs of the vicinity of the tower fires. The report includes, for all of the tests, plots of the heat release rate and temperature histories in multiple locations.

REPLY: I don’t believe the shafts that were destroyed by the plane impacts were modeled. These open shafts would have allowed removal of superheated smoke by the chimney effect thus possibly lowering the heat in the floor areas by delaying flashover.

10. Why didn’t NIST fully model the collapse initiation and propagation of WTC Towers?
The first objective of the NIST Investigation included determining why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft (NIST NCSTAR 1). Determining the sequence of events leading up to collapse initiation was critical to fulfilling this objective. Once the collapse had begun, the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling, as shown in the response to question #1 above.
11. Why didn’t NIST consider the “base” and “less severe” cases throughout its analysis of the WTC Towers? What was the technical basis for selecting only the “more severe” case for its analyses?
All three cases, (the base case, less severe case, and more severe case) are reasonable and realistic representations, each within the range of uncertainty, of the conditions in the WTC Towers on September 11, 2001. Of the three, the more severe case resulted in the closest agreement with the visual and physical evidence. (Refer to NIST NCSTAR 1-2, Section 7.1 and NIST NCSTAR 1-6, Section 9.2.4.)

REPLY: There was little visual evidence of insulation condition as the interior of the buildings were obscured by smoke.

12. What was the source of the material properties that were used in NIST’s thermal/structural analyses of the WTC Towers? Were these properties obtained from physical testing of steel recovered from the WTC Towers?
NIST conducted extensive property measurement tests on the recovered WTC steel, which included all the many grades of structural steel used in the WTC Towers. To account for natural variation in properties from different batches of manufactured steel, NIST augmented the experimental data with published data for steels of the same construction era. These data included room temperature, high-strain rate, and high-temperature mechanical properties, along with physical properties.
13. NIST states that the fires in WTC 1 were generally ventilation limited. If this was the case, wouldn’t the fires have burned out in about 2 minutes? Why do NIST’s models show the fires burning longer?
Nearly all fires are limited either by the burning rate of combustible fuel (fuel-limited fires) or by the availability of air (ventilation-limited fires). Many fires that are ventilation limited do continue to burn, with the burning rate determined by the chemistry of the combustion and the rate at which the oxygen arrives. This was generally the case for the WTC Tower fires. Of course, if the rate of air inflow were too slow (e.g., due to very few broken windows), the limited combustion would not have generated sufficient heat to continue pyrolyzing fuel, and the fire would have gone out. This was not the case on the fire floors in the WTC Towers.
The Fire Dynamics Simulator, used to reconstruct the fires in the WTC towers, included the burning characteristics of the building combustibles and the ventilation through the broken windows and the damaged building façade. The simulation showed that there were ample perforations in the building facade to maintain the ventilation-limited combustion until the fuel supply was depleted.

REPLY: Excess ventilation, – as when most of the superheated smoke flowing across the ceiling is drawn up and out of the area by the chimney effect in the open shafts, – can delay flashover which depends on the smoke building up at the ceiling area and descending to cause total room flashover by radiation and convection heating of the rest of the combustibles in the room or area.

14. The collapse sequence for WTC 1 proposed by NIST includes, aircraft impact, core weakening, floor sagging and disconnection, inward bowing of the south wall, and collapse initiation. If the floors are disconnecting from the south wall, how were the floors able to exert forces on the exterior walls to cause the inward bowing?
Analyses of the composite floor system under fire exposures determined from fire dynamics simulations and thermal analyses, predicted sagging subsequent to truss web diagonal buckling and failure of some seated connections (see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). However, the vast majority of the connections remained intact. Further, the shear studs that attached the floor slab to the spandrel, and the diagonal steel struts that connected the truss top chord to the intermediate columns were also capable of transferring inward pull forces. Thus, the sagging floors were capable of exerting an inward pull on the exterior columns and spandrel beams.

REPLY: This pull-in force over three floors was capable of buckling the exterior columns without any core weakening. See my book “Fire in the Skyscraper”.

Considering the amount of folks that are holding their breaths waiting for this report their will probably be a significant reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the hot air that is issuing from the White House will never decrease and global warming will prevail, along with a myriad of other ongoing problems…G:

Well, this particular discussion has been going on since Nov. 8, 2007 so I would like to update some of the thoughts and ideas from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

RE:

Jan 6, 2008: Richard Gage’s Comments to NIST Committee— Editor

On December 18, 2007, a NIST subcommittee was convened during which members detailed the progress of their research into the causes for WTC Building 7’s “collapse” on 9/11. Richard Gage contributed to the public comments at the end of the meeting. Below is the written (slightly altered) version of those comments.

Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7

Response to NIST’s Invitation for Written Comments

Documentation of spoken remarks presented on December 18 conference call with the NCST Advisory Committee

Emailed to NIST on January 3, 2008

Richard Gage, AIA – Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

I’m Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years. I represent Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a fast-growing body of more than 230 architects and engineers dedicated solely to bringing out the truth about all three high-rise building collapses on 9/11. We believe that we have answers to your questions about the puzzling collapse of World Trade Center 7.

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, “to look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses.”

Let’s start with temperatures – 1,340° F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA’s AVIRIS equipment on USGS overflights. Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F. Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that “molten steel was found at 7 WTC.” Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails… like you’re in a foundry – like lava from a volcano.” Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said “it was dripping from the molten steel.” Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated about the multi-ton “meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”

The knowledge that this evidence even exists was denied by one of your top engineers, John Gross, in his appearance at the University of Texas in April of this year.

Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?

Appendix C of FEMA’s BPAT Report (attached to this email) documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”

NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn’t fit in with the official conspiracy theory.

Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine – the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There’s no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate’s key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.

In addition, World Trade Center 7’s catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic of explosive, controlled demolition. You can see all these characteristics at our website http://www.AE911truth.org. The destruction began suddenly at the base of the building. Several first responders reported explosions occurring about a second before the collapse. There was the symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of greatest resistance – with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load – straight down into its own footprint. This requires that all the columns have to fail within a fraction of a second of each other – perimeter columns as well as core columns. There was also the appearance of mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said “This is controlled demolition… a team of experts did this… This is professional work, without any doubt.”

Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual deformations and asymmetrical collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction with linear shaped charges. If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has been accomplished at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very explosive.

The National Fire Protection Association’s NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (1998 Edition) dictates in fire investigations that certain residues should be tested for. Thermate would leave behind signs of sulfidation/corrosion by sulfur. Such residues were in fact noted in Appendix C of the FEMA BPAT report (see note 11). “If the physical evidence establishes one factor, such as the presence of an accelerant, that may be sufficient to establish the cause even where other factors such as ignition source cannot be determined.” Thermate and sulfur obviously qualify as accelerants in this case (with regard to the destruction of steel which in turn could have caused the near-free-fall-speed collapse). (The fires were not particularly suspicious, but Building 7’s collapse was, because of its symmetry and speed.)

Because NIST seems to have forgotten or neglected to apply key features of the scientific method, I am including as an attachment to this submission Steven E. Jones, “Revisiting 9/11/2001 — Applying the Scientific Method”, Journal of 911 Studies, April 2007, Journal of 9/11 Studies: JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf.

How much longer must we endure NIST’s cover-up of how Building 7 was actually destroyed? Millions of Americans, including the 230+ architects and engineers and 600 others of AE911Truth.org, demand that NIST come clean with a full-throttle, fully resourced and transparent forensic investigation of the evidence of the controlled demolition of Building 7.

All of Mr.Griffin’s theories on controlled demolition are answered by :
On Debunking 9/11 Debunking
Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism
of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation
by Ryan Mackey
Version 2.0, 21 January 2008
Original Release 31 August 2007http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_0.pdf

Debunking never was a very good read, but debunking debunking looks like a real challenge. There are 231 pages of smoke screen in this document. Not my cup of tea…):

What about Dr. James Quintiere? How many pages is it going to take to debunk him? Has this epic presentation addressed real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses. If so, I hope that Quintiere can wade through the whole thing and give you an answer.

Unless he does, I guess that I’ll just have to believe that this answers all the questions? Maybe I can, in my spare time assemble a commitee of experts, kinda like “Popular Mechanics” did and do the mother of all Debunking projects…G:

And what about Bill Manning the editer in chief of Fire Engineering Magazine who condemned the destruction of evidence, mainly the steel beams and trusses? Has the NIST decided to dig some more evidence out of the dump? And has the NIST called for an independent investigation?

January 4, 2002

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the “official investigation” blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a “tourist trip”-no one’s checking the evidence for anything. 4

Manning also emphatically condemned the destruction of structural steel, declaring “The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.” Manning contrasted the operation to past disasters:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that’s what they’re doing at the World Trade Center.

Manning indicated that the destruction of the steel was illegal, based on his review of the national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, which provides no exemption to the requirement that evidence be saved in cases of fires in buildings over 10 stories tall.

Geezer. I cant believe you will not spend the time to read Ryan Mckay’s paper. He provides fully convincing evidence that Griffin is full of crap. The most important investigation to my mind is to ascertain why and how the trusses failed and pulled in the exterior column walls in each building. There is no disagreement among the experts that this is what happened. As it stands now NIST reports that the trusses had to have the fireproofing removed by the planes in order for the buildings to fail. Their computer models could not verify the floor truss failure theory and they had to add distortions in the model to equal the wall pull-in distances observed in the videos or photos. NIST also requires the creep shortening of some core columns for global collapse to have occurred.

There are others notably Prof. Usmani, Barbara Lane, Susan Lamont, Grame Flint, Dr. Quintiere and I that believe the collapses could have occured without any fireproof removal by the panes and without any core column shortening. Usmani has two dimensional computer graphs that show the vulnerabilities of the long span bar joists used in the Towers construction. Lane, Lamont and Flint have 3 dimensional computer models that show a three floor fire of 800 C would collapse the buildings even with intact fireproofing. There models don’t require any weakening in the columns and show that with three truss floors buckling or bowing the exterior columns buckle in three places and transfer their loads on to the adjacent exterior walls and the core columns which fail from overloads. They however didn’t consider the hat truss in their models. Building 7 a more conventional construction is also of major importance.

All other investigations about controled demolitions etc. are a waste of time. They didn’t happen. Read Mckay at
2007http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_0.pdf

Well. I took a look at Mckay’s contribution to the immaculate smoke screen. All I can tell you about the NIST investigation that if it was whitewash, I wouldn’t even be able to find the fence.

I did a search on it and found only one reference to Quintiere, where McKay did his own interpretation of what Quintire once mentioned about fireproofing and trusses. I certainly wouldn’t state that Dr. Quintiere and you agree on how the collapses ocurred using this…G:?

In it he stated:

“In October 2005, Dr.
161
Quintiere addressed the House of Representatives on the NIST findings, and takes issue
with the NIST methods and findings. His comments include the following two excerpts:
Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several
work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic – ¼?] of a WTC floor would have been of
considerable value. Why was this not done? Especially, as we have pointed out to NIST that they
may have underestimated the weight of the furnishings in the North Tower by a factor of 3. As
fire effects on structure depend on temperature and time, this likely longer burning time is
significant in the NIST analyses. Other tests of the trusses in the UL furnaces show that the steel
attains critical temperatures in short times, and these temperatures correspond to NIST’s own
computation of truss failure for a single truss. Why have these findings seemingly been ignored in
the NIST analyses?
… NIST speaks to the need for education. I left NIST to contribute to that goal. The U.S.
produces about 50 fire protection engineers per year when about 500 are really needed. If the fire
service would incorporate fire engineers this number would double. There is a big lack of
knowledge here, and it contributes to an infrastructure of fire safety that is currently fraught with
good intentions, special interests, and ignorance. The Science Committee should recognize this
deficiency. [246]”

So McKay writes:

“Dr. Quintiere is in the minority with his opinions, but it is important to note that, even if
he is completely correct, there is even less reason to suspect explosives were present. He
believes that the fire insulation as-built was inadequate, and the fuel load on the fire
floors was significantly above the conservative NIST estimate – factors that, if present,
would make collapse of the WTC Towers completely inevitable after impact. No
explosives at all would be needed, nor even fireproofing damage, if his critique is
accurate.
The author has no doubt that more insight remains to be drawn from study of the
collapses, and that future adjustments to building code are important and sensitive to
these conclusions. It is clear that ongoing study will help resolve some of the possible
conflicts and remaining disagreements in the scientific community.”

So McKay is saying of Quintiere:

He believes that the fire insulation as-built was inadequate, and the fuel load on the fire
floors was significantly above the conservative NIST estimate – factors that, if present,
would make collapse of the WTC Towers completely inevitable after impact.”

NIST’s 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up
of the Crime of the Century
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, Dec 8, 2005

A critique of the Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The most qualified experts on collapsing buildings would be demolition experts and firemen…and those who spend their carriers studying building collapses like Prof. Quintiere, Usmani, Lane, Lamont, Sunder, Gross, Corbett etc. all of whom believe the bar joist floors failed first and pulled in the exterior walls.

Raymond Downey’s first impression of the loud sounds of the collapsing buildings was that it was an explosion. I am sure if he lived he would have revised his first impressions. The first thing I thought of when I heard the South Tower begin collapsing was that it was an explosion.

Prof. Quintiere called for an independent investigation. So did Bill Manning, and so did Corbett.

Here is Corbett speaking on March 6, 2002

The building performance assessment currently being conducted of the World Trade Center collapse is just that: an assessment, not an investigation. While the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) is composed of an elite group of engineers and scientists, the standard procedures used by the BPAT have proven to be inadequate. Handling the collapse study as an assessment has allowed valuable evidence—the steel building components—to be destroyed. The steel holds the primary key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors resulting in the collapse.

Without an investigative presence, the FEMA-sanctioned assessment team did not have the authority—nor the organizational wherewithal—to ensure that all of the structural steel was thoroughly examined and the crucial steel from the points of impact saved for examination. Only a handful of pieces of steel from the points of impact have been secured to date. In addition, the BPAT studying the collapse has apparently been hampered in accessing building construction documents.

These hindrances will have an impact on the BPAT report, due to be released in April. The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse.

The collapse of the World Trade Center towers were the largest structural collapses in world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget.

.Glen Corbett’s work is what helped start the federal NIST investigation which is ongoing especially on the cause of the collapse of Building 7.

While I disagree with some of their findings, NIST has to get a B+ for the work they did.

I think there is much more work to be done especially in real scale experiments on the fire resistance of long span flooring and the modeling of overall building stability and educating architects and engineers about fire resistive buildings and the prevention of global collapse.

Thanks Arthur for keeping us informed. I think that the academic community will agree that there is much more work to be done that will be of great concern to architects and engineers.

“I think there is much more work to be done especially in real scale experiments on the fire resistance of long span flooring and the modeling of overall building stability and educating architects and engineers about fire resistive buildings and the prevention of global collapse.”

Something also worthy of consideration is that the “real scale experiment” has already happened, and the evidence was made unavailable to the investigators.

An ongoing investigation that has so far lasted over six years is no closer to reaching any conclusions than when it first started. All there is to work with are piles of documentary opinions that have buried any hopes of unveiling the truth.

Everybody except Bu$hco is calling for an independent and open investigation, so that the truth can be brought out into the light of day. How can you give a B+ to the NIST for a confusing and redundant essay of such gigantic proportions? Any University prof. worth his salt would take one look at it and inform his student that there is too much information on too little evidence and that it should be simplified. The essay has far too many pages…G:

And who do you think should head this investigation ? All the engineers worth their salt have already written reports. I wrote what I consider a comprehensive essay of less than 250 pages that better explains the collapses than NIST. We need some real scale experiments to see whose theory is correct.

We need to know.
What spans of trusses and steel I beams are vunulerable to fire.
Would more lateral support and of what type would prevent the outer walls from bowing inward after the trusses collapse into catenaries.
Would more lateral support in Building 7’s core have prevented the vertical floor collapse from progressing into the core.
Exactically how does contraction in long span steel beams, after they sag from heat and contract on cooling, exert tensile forces on the columns.
etc.,etc.

What investigation? And why will no one actually recommend that there be one? I think that we all know the answer, including you. You wrote a “comprehensive essay of less than 250 pages that better explains the collapses than NIST”. Well good for you, and what of the myriads of other subjects that should be included in a comprehensive investigation?

We need to demand that more evidence be shown and that it is shown in the public arena and Bu$hco needs to know that history will reflect the truth of what really happened. No one including God can creat what they want to be seen as reality or change the truth. The Devil can make a lot of disharmony though and put up an evil and smelly smoke screen that can only be surmounted by the truth.

Anyone at all for an independent, open, and comprehensive investigation on the single most important matter in recent political history?

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, and is admissible as evidence. Of course a physical object, such as a beam, floor joist, or even a speck of dust makes a photograph seem insignifigant.
10,00,00 pages of whitewash does not constitute an investigation. That’s why it isn’t finished.

Don’t you believe that evidence is what is needed. There is still a wealth of evidence, some of it being in the dump. Bu$hco didn’t destroy it all because he couldn’t. There are still small pieces of debris on roof tops and cracks in the sidewalks etc. that can be gleaned and analysed. Remember the dust recovered from a monument near the trade center that was found to contain thermite? Well there is still more to be found. If I lived in New York I could probably find some evidence myself, or is the whole place still under armed guard? 🙄

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let’s look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what’s the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become ‘Conspiracy Theorists’, but in a proper way,” he said.

————————————————————

Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

“I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. …

“All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.

1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? …

2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? …

3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn’t NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?

4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.

5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? …

6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?”

I happened across this thread today and read it all.
Most interesting discourse, gentlemen.

However, I ran across Ryan Mackey’s paper “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking”. Since I have had some interaction with him, and knew of this recent work of his but had not read it, I thought this might be something to do at this moment.

I agree with Prof. Quintiere that the Port Authority should be held acountible and we need a call for legistation to bring all the authorities under code compliance enforcement by the appropriate agancies. Some of these Authorities are currently exempt from compliance with any codes.
I believe the deportation of the steel was a major error. This calls for legislation to require that the seel from building collapses be saved for examination.
The validation of NIST’s modeling results is in question. Others have computed solutions with different conclusions on the cause and mechanism of the collapse. These other models of the collapse should be exmined and differences fully explored by NIST.
A replicate real scale fire test of at least a WTC long span, bar joist floor would be of considerable value and should be done. Fire tests of long span conventional composit construction should also be done.
The collapse of building 7 is still under investigation and NIST should develop sandards of limits on the spans of different types of floor systems and connection as well as floor fireproofing and floor strength standards.

I certainly agree that corporate infiltration of our governmental agencies including NIST has hampered the investigation. The NIST lawyers were certainly impeding my getting information that NIST had, and some of the team members were certainly obstructing a full and honest analysis of the facts. On the other hand some people at NIST were doing excellent jobs and others were very helpful in doing scientific calculations on floor collapse mechanisms at my request. The upcoming elections should help disgorge some of the corporate infiltration. Particularly harmful was the appointment of corporate people to head the very governmental agencies designated to regulate the corporations.

Some people still believe the propaganda from the neo-cons that corporations are smarter than governmental agencies. They may well be smarter but their goals of making money for their own people are off times conflicting with regulating their actions to protect competion, prevent fraud, and protect the public from defective or dangerous products. The government needs cleaning up but they certainly didn’t plant explosives to bring the WTC buildings down. The deficient designs against fire, inadequate fireproofing along with the fires and gravity were adequate.

“There is substantial evidence that explosions occurred well BELOW the areas impacted by the planes hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11. Indeed, according to some witnesses, some of these explosions occurred before the plane even hit the building:”

I believe the implication of Government interference goes all the way to the top. From the day that Bu$hco was installed in the White House, by the Neocons, we have heard one voice from the PNAC idiologs that were stacked into all the high positions of his caqbinet. The same voice that Duhbya parrots as he decieves the American people.

Yes, the Port Authority should be held accountable, but the buck doesn’t stop there. It is my opinion that the White House now has control of all three branches of government and through the manipulation of presidential directives has made themselves a power unto itself. Accountability for the deeds of this bunch of crooks has been relatively unsuccesful so far, and is stonewalled at every attempt to bring anyone to justice.

There is an enormous amount of evidence and testimony that will never reach the light of day without a new investigation, and the main stream media will only give one side of the story unless it becomes unprofitable to do so. I hope you’re right about the elections. From what I’ve seen so far, it is all about money and power. At least Giuliani is out of the race. He spent $60,000,000on his failed campaign and lost because some NY Firefighters demonstrated against him in Florida. One small victory for “We The People”…(:

MIHOP and LIHOP indeed, just a couple more of the tricky names used by this incompetent and unaccountable administration. We can add these to the countless other names like “Ownership Society”, Healthy Forest’s Iniative, or Clear Sky Iniative. Everyone of these, through “Machiavellian Manipulation”, (hay, I made a catch phrase for us truth seekers), has resulted in detrimental effects for the problems they were supposed to solve.

Looks like Bu$hco’s been spending too much time at the IHOP, that’s probably how they came up with the pancake theory. The whole Neocon agenda from day one has been to “make it happen on purpose”, and trouncing on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights doesn’t bother them one bit. They infiltrated every aspect of our government and social structure so they could produce change by cheating, lying, influencing, controlling, buying, threatening, eavesdropping, and I might add terrorizing “We The People”.

Well said Geezer!
We know the administrations Machiavellian Manipulations are responsible for this never ending war and the ongoing fleecing of the people, but there is no credible evidence of there having been explosives used to take down the towers. I revised my piece on: Reports of Controlled Demolition, Bombs, Thermite, Electromagnetic Rays, etc..

Many reports interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these ‘explosive’ sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. The exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane’s impact. That’s 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2’s collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have happened with controlled demolition.

When the south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. In the North Tower “thunder” sounds were heard when floors collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these ‘explosive’ sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe all the supposed ‘explosive’ sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in and buckled by the bowing and buckling floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive ‘explosive’ sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors (pan caking). The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.

It is also clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls. All these adverse floor truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling can happen at low temperatures (400 C to 600 C) even before the steel would have weakened excessively from higher temperatures. Once the exterior column buckling spread,- assisted by the spandrels,- along an entire wall on one face the towers began to tilt and the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and with all the columns buckled the leaning top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some northern angles to have fallen straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the cantilevered top building section pulled the core over to the south.

The South Tower’s top tilted to the east because its east wall buckled first. Once the core columns got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the buildings gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolted connections holding the floors to the columns. This coupled with the fact that the falling top sections momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top section’s acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts would have been increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs increasing amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulated floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.

In order for the columns to support the weight they have to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. If they get out of plumb by 10 to 20 degrees they buckle and can no longer support the weight. The buildings collapsed because the floors first buckled from restrained thermal expansion and thermal bowing affecting floor truss stability. The sagging floor trusses pulled in the 59 columns in one exterior wall and they eventually buckled. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. Once the tilted building’s tops began descending they hit the floors or columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top the columns would have to hit each other exactly in line and in plumb and this was impossible with the top leaning causing eccentric angles of impact.

The fact is that columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the south wall buckled in Tower 2 the adjacent exterior wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have also eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. With all the columns across the building buckled the top section began descending at an angle to the building section below. None of the columns would have been axially lined up. As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated to bedrock 7 stories into the cellars.
There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been longer than ‘free fall’ times of an object dropped from the towers tops. I have a theory that may explain this. Since the Tower’s outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana, they may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns; would these columns, while leaning out, be able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might help explain the rapid collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than ‘free fall’ times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above.
The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high builddings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance (500 feet) was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree.
Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers.

In addition, the compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out of any air intake or discharge openings on the exterior walls on the lower mechanical equipment floors. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive vertical HVAC shafts built into the building. These shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts open to the exterior on the mechanical floors. Collapse of these shafts would force the dust and smoke out these HVAC exhaust and intake openings in the side of the building.

The lightweight aluminum cladding’s breaking free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off these aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive ‘squibs’. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel, and such indications were not found in the debris pile.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat form the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. Batteries also contain Sulfuric acid which could have corroded the steel accounting for the half consumed steel beams found in the debris pile. Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldn’t last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed.

About the concrete destruction into dust; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says “the energy required to crush concrete to 100 μm particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range.”http://nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par due to freezing during curing or too much air or water having been added during construction.

The windows broken out and marble wall panels detached on the interior of the first floor lobby were probably because of torque forces experienced on the lower floor columns from the plane impacts many floors above. The reports of “explosions” in the cellars were also probably from such column displacements or from jet fuel ignitions in the elevator shafts. There were reports of split walls and ceiling collapses on many floors after the planes hit.

In conclusion I think the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions; the sounds of the Towers collapse, – remember most of the people in Tower 1 did not know Tower 2 had collapsed and attributed the sounds of that collapse to be happening in the building they were in. When the interior of building 7 collapsed it would have produced explosive sounds before the exterior walls began collapsing.

I do think that accountability is the important issue here, because without it only the agendas of Bu$hco will be forthcoming. If this was a monarchy instead of a totalitarian government it would be a lot easier, just like Duhhbya said, and could be made accountable by “Storming the Bastille”, as was done in a similar situation in Paris France in 1789. Unfortunately The Corporate Government is operating under the guise of Democracy while exercising powers over the people that haven’t been seen since the times of the German Empire. Just the idea, let alone the possibility, that our country has experienced another Pearl Harbor as called for by the PNAC calls for a more comprehensive investigation of the WTC disaster. If our government won’t even recognise that “We The People” have a right to an open and independent investigation, then, in a real court of law they could be guilty of a cover-up…G:

According to Newton’s Law, an object in free fall would take a little less than 8 seconds to fall 1000 feet in a vacuum. At the end of the first second it would travel 32.2 feet and reach a velocity of around 22 mph. and so on like…44, 66, 88, 110, and at the end of six seconds be traveling 132 mph while being slowed by signifigant drag…then 154, and then around 176 mph at zero ft.

My question for today is, if this banana peeling effect of the breaking of connections to the floors ahead of the floors is throwing out mega tons of steel beams for hundreds of feet, what is the amount of work necessary to produce all this energy? And what effect would this work have on the acceleration of the pancaking floors?

If I remember my physics classes correctly, the work was done during construction by the kangaroo cranes hauling all this heavy steel and concrete up to the floors being constructed. Each foot that one pound is raised expends a ‘foot pound’ of work. If you multiply the millions of pounds of steel and concrete by the number of feet each pound was raised you get the “foot pounds” of work expended. This is somehow related to the potential energy stored in the finished building. Gravity is always working to bring the building down. If fire or other condition buckles or weakens enough columns gravity will do the rest.

I believe that the buildings were in a state of stability as designed by a competent architect, and the work expended to cause collapse was more than could be produced by the plane and heat energy of the jet fuel.

If I remember the Laws of enertia correctly, a body at rest tends to stay at rest, especially if it is welded and bolted in place. Also none of this material fell straight down in a vacuum, but indeed some of the heaviest parts that should have fallen straight down were hurled out hundreds of feet, some of them even sticking into surrounding buildings.

It doesn’t really matter how the material got there, the physics are the same. If a cliff is undermined by erosion it will eventually reach a point where the mass overcomes the strength of the rock that is supporting it, and it will fall down vertically. It is diverted only by what it meets on the way down. If it is sitting on a natural lever of some kind it will move outward the length of the lever.

You are right fireproof buildings, if they are built right, don’t come crashing down during fires. They are supposed to be built to with stand any fire until the fire burns out. There was clearly a design fault built into the Towers and Building 7. Bar joist trusses are used for one story supermarkets not 1300 foot high skyscrapers. That’s why the City has now banned these trusses for use in skyscrapers.

We need further study on long span, steel beams as used in Building 7.

My mom used to tell me “No ifs, ands or buts about it” whether I was making an excuse for skipping school or for getting low marks in civics. Speculation was not in her vocabulary and now that I reflect on it it makes a lot more sense to me.

The time that we spend on speculation is time that we could be using for observing facts that exist in the here and now. We certainly can’t live in the past and the future is never what we think it will be unless we can dream it with complete non attachment.

None of us have any business here except as observers of physical objects and in their absence, documentation, with observable links in time & space. I guess what I’m saying here is that maybe we need to apply some principles here that were established Darwin in his famous book “Voyage of the Beagle”, that show how keen observation and
documentation of physical phenomena revealed
some profound truth’s. It was only after Darwin’s gathering of evidence that the head games began and the Hypothetical cases of the egoblatters rang out through the land to proclaim that their beliefs
were the only ones that were true…G:

Well, the words out folks, pomeroo says he is throwing in the towel, because he can’t find anyone with the stones to debate Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman. Yeh, sure…I think that what he really means is that he can’t find anyone dumb enough to play another mans game. In actuality the debate would include pomeroo (Ronald Weick) also. It would be like going into a bar in a strange town to play poker with the locals. Even god can’t beat an ace with a deuce, that’s why he doesn’t play games…G:

If pomeroo will play my game I welcome his intellectual prowess. It’s called (whoever picks up the last match loses)…OK here we go, your choice as to who goes first. Take as many matches as you want out of any row, and you must pick up at least one match from any row but from only one row. You might ask if you can take all the matches in the row…The answer is yes

Hi folks, have y’all read the 10,000,000 pages of the NIST report yet. Well if ya have or have not maybe you should read this. I’m sure that it is much shorter than 10,000,000 pages and you’ll probably find that it is more interesting. The proffesional skeptics and paid shills will undoubtetly find that this is irrelevent, but they will tell you that all of the numbered metal pieces from the erecter set that were carted off to the smelters are irrelevent too. We really do need some more concrete evidence for the upcoming investigation…G:

Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water
supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the
towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of
Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was
cleared.

after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
fires would burn out without any local or global collapse.

from the video

Pomaroo: “Now Arthur it sounds to me like this is an extraordinary feat by the fire department to avoid
any more loss of life on this terrible day”.

Arthur says “Yeh, absolutely, especially when you abandon a building and there is an uncontrolled fire, there is a possibility of collapse no matter what kind of building it is uh if the fire is bad enough

from Arthur’s article

Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water
supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
fires would burn out without any local or global collapse.

Sorry for the mis wording. I told them not to include that statment in the final cut but they probably forgot.

The problem was that the building was not up to code because the PA of NY,NJ was not required to follow any codes and there was a design defect in the use of long span bar joist so the building was not actually a fireproof building as the collapse proved.

I see that there is discussion over at JREF about whether the FDNY was in on it, but whether that is a subject of prime importance looks questionable to me. If they are implicated that would be something to be determined at an investigation, rather than a Psuedo-intellectual forum. Gravy has used Hayden’s
interview to claim that WTC was visably out of balance, but not paying attention to some of his other testimony. Such as his description of the lobby of WTC1 when he first entered it. That the windows were all blown out and that all the slabs of marble were blown off the walls.

Some of the other stuff in his testimony says that there was water available at West and Vesey St’s.

“We had a water supply problem because I remember the water main was broken. Actually, to get water over in our sector over there at West and Liberty we got one of the fireboats to draft for us. It turned out it was the retired John J. Harvey that started drafting for us. That�s what got us water. When somebody total me the Harvey was pumping water, I said the Harvey? Thank God it was there because it pumped for us for about three to five days.”

Arthur: I looked at both of your articles and they both gave “failure of the water supply” as one of the reasons for letting WTC7 burn? …G:

Readers…FYI: The reason that I pointed out the two different versions of The Collapse of Building 7 is that they are two intirely different articles with omissions and additions to the script…

RE:

The first paragraph
___________________

The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8, ‘06

WTC’s Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein
Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NYNJ
codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was
not hit by any planes but had some damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the
south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water
supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the
towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of
Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was
cleared. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of
uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse.
Building 7 was built over an existing Consolidated Edison power station. Above
the seventh floor, the construction was very similar to that of the towers: with
long-span outer floors, large open areas, unknown fireproofing on the steel, little
lateral bracing in the core, and most likely weak column splicing.
Since the perimeter wall columns were shear walls that resisted wind loads, the
long-span floors (53 feet) acted as a diaphragm, transferring loads between
exterior walls and between the walls and the core; the center core structure, as
in the towers, supported only gravity loads. One important difference was that
instead of steel bar-joists, the primary floor structure was more typical in that it
had two-foot-deep wide flange steel I-beams, nine feet on center, composite
with a concrete slab.

Became
_______

The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman
FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired

Posted February 29, 2008

WTC’s Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NY-NJ codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was not hit by any planes but had damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out.

Building 7 had all the same deficiencies present in the Towers except that the bar joist, trusses were replaced with long span I beams. There were large growing fires on several floors as well as damage from the exterior columns of Tower 1 which peeled away during its collapse and hit the southwest corner and the middle of the south side of building 7, gouging out large sections. In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.

I think you are promoting PNAC agenda and you should look hard in the mirror daily and see a beaten man.
No one of critical thinking believe the NIST report as it stands today withhout the nessesary evidence to really back it up 100%. After all how did the building get “pulled” in such a quick manner on September 11, 2001 and more importantly why was it obmitted from the 911 report completely.
If you believe in a god, may he forgive for this sin.

I ran across some interesting pictures of the concrete stairs at the bottom of one of the WTC’s that had just been uncovered.
They were intact except for some wear and tear to the steps….not broken up at all.

But in a past post

Arthur Scheuerman
February 10, 2008 at 10:51 am

“As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated to bedrock 7 stories into the cellars.”

Wayne,
The NIST report is a scientific report written by some of the best fire safety engineers in the world. It is not complete yet. They are still working on the collapse of Building 7. Did you read it ? Building 7 was obmitted from the 911 report because NIST was examining it at the time. If you have some evidence against the authors of PENAC then give it to someone you trust to persue it further.

After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity of the fire until the steel is glowing red hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer.

These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen. Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation was erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. There were also quantities of lead, tin, and silver used in the computer circuit boards. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldn’t last the hours or days at which times the ‘molten metal’ was observed.

Excuse me for mentioning a moot point. I guess that what you’re saying is that no concrete edifices such as stairways were to be found directly under the buildings.

Because…“As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated to bedrock 7 stories into the cellars.”

I am sure the new version will expand and clarify the original version or possibly completly replace some portions of it.

About the concrete stairway. They normally don’t build solid concrete stairways inside of buildings. It was probably a stairway to the outside where it could withstand the weather like a subway stairway.

I’ve been reading some interesting eye witness accounts alluding to evidence of molten metal and in some cases molten steel in particular. Herb Trimps experiences are particularly interesting because he was there for many months clear to the time that the foundation was exposed and also writes about the human experience there.

A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:
When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5

A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6

A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:
Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7

An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

A member of the New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9

The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:
… or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10

A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

Well I have seen molten aluminum, molten lead, even molten glass at fires but I have never seen molten steel. I’ve seen twisted, sagging, buckled steel but never molten steel. It would be very unusual for molten steel to haven been produced. I think the people seeing molten metal (lead,tin,aluminum,silver or even gold, etc.) are being loose with the language by stating it was molten steel. Did they test it? How do they know it was molten steel? Where are all the solidified pools of molten steel? It would be very unusual.

In looking at the testimonial, documented, and photographic evidence there seems to be signifigant evidence that this unusual circumstance actually existed. The NIST has not addressed this and many other things and in my opinion does not constitute an investigation in any way shape or form. What could be the reason for opposition to an open and independent investigation?

“Concrete disintigrates at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit but doesn’t melt untill it reaches approximately 3000 degrees. Steel melts at around 2500 degrees so this conglomerate must have formed at around this temperature as some of the gun parts are melted. If the whole thing was to exceed the melting point of the agragate in the concrete it would end up being a form of lava or obsidian.”

I see a couple of broken, rusted gun parts surrounded by some kind of conglomerate. Which gun parts are melted. Probably the handle which is usually plastic. How come the entire guns didn’t melt?
The ‘compacted conglomerate’ is probably compressed concrete along with some other material. I guess the whole thing didn’t exceed the melting point of the agragate in the concrete or it would end up being a form of lava or obsidian. Lava or obsidian is not steel. Where are the rivers of molten solidified steel.

After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. Because of the available combustibles and the air feeding the fire from the bottom the temperatures can be extreme. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity of the fire until the steel is glowing red or orange, yellow hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer. These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen.
Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. There were also quantities of lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards.

“After any fire in which a building collapses, “there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile”

Aren’t we talking about a skyscraper? There are absolutely no examples of a steel framed skyscraper collapsing because of fire.

———

“These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings”.

How can they be common when it is a rare thing for a skyscraper to collapse because of fire?

———-

“These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron.”

Not even close. With a blacksmiths forge a large volume of air has to be pumped into a small area of the fire to reach those temperatures.

———–

“The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile.”

I agree, the heat that was present there would have melted the aluminum and lead, and also probably would have reduced them to ashes. 2500 degrees fahrenheit seems to be around the temperature that would be necessary to fuse the molten concrete to the steel according to the artical quoted in the above comment and the evidence is displayed at the NY Police Museum…G:

I saw the pictures of the “metiorite” of fused metal and concrete. The bars from the bar joists could clearly be seen within the concrete layers. Twisted metal bars are not evidence of melted steel.

Of course many different kinds of buildings collapse during fires. The deep seated fires which occur in the rubble are supplied with air because natural convection currents. Heated air rises because of its bouyancy and is replaced by cool air drawn in from the bottom and sides of the fire. This air flow can become rapid because of the high temperatures developed. The more air drawn in the hotter the fire becomes and the increased temperature increases the convection currents which draws in more air. I am convinced that temperatures of over 2000 deg F. can easily be developed. This temperature however is incapable of melting steel.

Well, I’m not drawing any conclusions Arthur, but it looks like temperatures above 2000 degree fahrenheit are indicated by the evidence that is being accumulated in Museums and probably other places.
Analysis of these concretions and conglomerates can show a lot about what was going on, just like those beams that were bent into sharp curves that required extreme heat.

It is very interesting that some paper was charcoalized and print could be read where there was evidence of temperatures that fused metal and concrete. Do you suppose the NIST will be interested in any of this? 🙄

I revised my Building 7 collapse theory to more closly reflect the actual reason for the collapse. I know there are still many deficiencies and await the final NIST analysis, scheduled for release this spring.

I’m surprised that this would be revised in this manner. That “Building 7 collapse theory” would be revised to fit what you call “the actual reason for the collapse”, when your concerns have so far addressed “the important goal of preventing future high-rise building collapses from fire”. 😉

Professor Usmani reported that the towers seemed to have been “unusually vulnerable” to a major fire. His computer analysis using a 2 dimensional model assumed an intact building with no aircraft damage. Usmani said it was not the materials but the structure’s design that caused the problem. (Usmani, Reuters, June 4, 03) Barbara Lane and Susan Lamont of Arup using a more sophisticated model in three dimensions of one quarter of each floor with a three floor fire with intact insulation and no plane impact, found that global collapse would occur due to ‘thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems’. 41

NIST maintains that the buildings likely would not have collapsed from the aircraft impact and subsequent jet fuel-ignited multifloor fires had not the fireproofing been dislodged or had it been only minimally dislodged. I believe Dr. Quintiere developed a sound, case for the position that these floors would have collapsed even if the insulation had remained intact. (5, 103,104)

The extreme lengths of the 60-foot floor spans have been implicated in the collapse, since the 35-foot span sections did not affect the columns, even though they were subjected to more intense fires than the long-span floor sections. Since the long span bar-joist floors, which failed and pulled in the exterior columns and caused the two towers to collapse, were not furnace tested at their actual size even with intact fireproofing, I don’t see how NIST can say the buildings would have survived a multifloor fire if the fireproofing had remained intact.

Usmani’s and NIST’s computer studies showed that collapse can occur at low steel temperatures (400°C to 500 C) when two or three or more floors are involved. (5, 13) Buckling and pull-in forces could have occurred in the long-span bar joists, even though the steel had not reached 500°C and still retained 90 percent of its strength and stiffness. To Usmani, this phenomenon suggests that failure temperatures could have been attained even if the steel trusses’ fire protection had survived the impact. (5, 29)

The bar joists’ failing at a low temperature indicates that the failure was caused, not by loss of strength, but by thermal bowing or restrained expansion against the columns’ and differential expansion of the steel chords as they were heated buckling the diagonal struts and thus the floor. This caused the pull-in forces which buckled the columns. The April ‘05 NIST report (case C) shows that very little fireproofing was knocked off most of the floors on the south side of the North Tower, yet these are the very floors implicated in the North Tower’s collapse.

Until an actual 60 ft. long span fire test proves otherwise, I maintain that thermal bowing and suspension forces induced in the buckling long-span floors were enough to buckle the exterior columns directly or by detaching floors. The detachments impacted the floors below, inducing even greater catenary forces, which caused perimeter wall failure and consequent global collapse. Because of the lack of lateral support in the core, the long-floor spans and the weak exterior column splices, global collapse could have occurred even though there was little or no heat weakening of perimeter or core columns. This was proved by Barbara Lane, Susan Lamont, and Flint’s work; see the theory section 3 of this report.

Any large-area, multiple-floor, uncontrolled fire in the Twin Towers could have produced global collapse, in my estimation, because of the following:
• Use of lightweight, long-span, steel-bar joists;
• Inadequate spray-on fireproofing;
• Deficiencies in lateral support (because of the absence of full moment connected columns and the lack of diagonal bracing or masonry infill between the core columns);
• Weak column splices; with missing bolts;
• Large, open areas not separated by fire walls;
• Numerous poke-through and access stair openings in fire containment walls and floors; allowing fire to spread upwards from floor to floor.
• Inadequate shear knuckles in the floors; and possibly
• Weak, inadequately cured, concrete floor slabs with no apparent reinforcement.

NIST recently reported that there was concrete reinforcement, but it’s curious that this was not reported in any of the earlier Building Performance reports.

Because of the Port Authority’s lack of accountability to any oversight agency or the building codes, significant deterioration in fire safety developed at the World Trade Center. In my estimation, four buildings at the WTC suffered global or progressive collapses because of fire—WTC 5, 7, and the Twin Towers.

New York City is currently revising and upgrading its codes, and NIST has worked to determine the causes of the WTC failures and to develop scientific data for the development of effective building codes for the protection of existing and future high-rise buildings. A few builder/developers are still resisting the idea that the situation should be more fully explored and understood and are working to prevent more stringent code provisions. Presently the code improvements are to be required only in buildings over 400 feet high, but these kinds of collapses could affect all high-rise buildings which have been codified as buildings over 75 feet or six stories high. It is evident that builders will not put in extra fireproofing or improved designs unless forced to by stringent codes and strong enforcement.

Tall buildings should be required to have independent computer analysis of design with increased active and passive protection, to limit the spread of fire and smoke and prevent collapse. Lawmakers should stop catering to builders’ myopic complaints about costs and refuse to allow any reductions in performance requirements. More stringent codes might stimulate some builders to invent new fire protection designs to reduce costs instead of reducing the safety requirements for buildings.

Arthur,what I’m talking about and questioning are the quotes that seem to be out of context that I mentioned above, and especially this addition to the new report …Quote!

“The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.”

This was quoted in the Hardfire Video where you appeared on hardfire with the debunkers…G:

Well, if we want to know the reasons for collapse, it’s way past time for an open and independent investigation where all of the evidence can be presented and examined. Of course the missing evidence will be significant in it’s absence and that fact will be important because it was done on purpose.

Spring is here and I have a hunch that the NIST report is still not ready for presentation, because it is so full of holes that it won’t hold water, and the real problem here is that the NIST has already been told, by top government officials, what the reasons for collapse are and the WTC Building 7 collapse theory is…G:

Geezer.
You are imposible to talk to. You already have your mind made up and no amount of information will change it. I just gave you the names of about 5 expert scientists who have spent their time to analyse the collapses and they all came to the same conclusions yet you continue to listen to hysterical people who come up with the wildest ideas with no evidence except there own immagination. Why don’t you spend some time and read my book. Maby then you can ask some intellegent questions.

BTW, I have not made up my mind; because there is a lot of evidence to be presented and I don’t profess to be an expert. I am examining all the evidence I can find including your testimony. I tend to believe testimony a lot more when it is not revised though. I hope you don’t plan to revise your book too. There are folks who payed a lot of money for that paperback publication…G:

I admit that, at the WTC, a lighter weight concrete was used than in other construction.

Conceding all these points, however, does not in any way give credence to your contention that the pulverization of the concrete can be explained by an inferior composition. I admit construction failures have been caused by inferior concrete.

On the other hand, the contention that what we saw on 9/11 at the WTC can be explained by inferior concrete is such a high form of hooey that I find myself spitting nails.

Well, I may be a tardy ‘ten o’clock scholar,’ arriving via Existentialist Cowboy’s via OpEdNews via George Washington’s (and maybe more I don’t recall, it’s been a long dusty trail), yet class continues in session. Indeed, the latest April’08 revival of 911Truth naysaying antagonizers seems to be a signal of preliminary activities for the expected sequel hoax — Nine-Eleven Op II — and that the target date for this second jackboot to fall, is soon. Quite soon.

Which has been my special interest, and whatever contribution it has amounted to: Predict the date of N.E.O. II. So far, I am 3 -for- 3 (batting a thousand) in predictions — you be the judge: Aug.25-26,’05, and Oct.25,’06, and ‘end of Aug,’ 20-31, ’07, quoting dates I said in advance. Each time, something seemed to foil the fascists’ plan, or maybe the appearance of being foiled was the plan. Aug.25,’05 was Hurricane Katrina; Oct.25, ’06 was Litvinenko reneging on his smuggler’s role and getting poisoned in retaliation, with the plutonium he had agreed to transport, in London; and Aug.30, ’07, some whistleblower wiseguy on the tarmac in Louisiana notified the media that there was something wrong with a plane from Minot, ND, sitting there with 6 nuke-tipped cruise missiles locked-and-loaded in position.

Now my prediction is May 11, ’08, for Nine-Eleven Op II to ‘trigger.’ Unless, and to be hoped, by the Graces and all you might pray supplication to, something foils the plan.

This ‘5/11’ date has my widest margin of error yet. I’d give 5/11 about a 65% confidence rating. But it’s my best educated guess in the interval May 5 – June 22, ’08, and within those margins I’d give (my prediction) a 90-plus % confidence rating.

So, hey, if you’ve got something better, or know elsewise, let’s hear it, just put it right here or there on the line. I’m not really being cocky in this, despite how it may so easily sound like it, but I have hit each of the only 3 dates I’ve picked and I should at least respect whatever faculty has been the source for my record in that.

Now there is this recent-rising ‘surge’ of Truth suppressors and naysayers, re-animated after their winter domancy, and the evident ‘full-court press’ coordination among them in it, signals portent. And, as squirrely ‘ethereal’ as it may sound, the last three days (since the New Moon Apr.5), my sleep is restive, my days are filled with ‘oddities,’ (e.g., I saw a ghost — and that’s only happened to me a very few times, 2 or 3, I haven’t kept track), and I can ‘feel something in the air.’ I know, I know, this is about as goofy-sounding as it gets, and I am a fool to open my mouth and remove all benefit of a doubt, but, yet, just saying …. And, it likely goes without saying, all my life I’ve been a ‘sensitive kinda guy,’ where “highly speculative” is an understatement. But, hey, we each are born as what we each are born as, and a person might as well ‘Know Thyself’ to be what a person is, because then you don’t have to fake it.

Anyway, there is a method to my madness: Astrology. I’ve practiced nearly 40 years, have ‘read’ about 3000 people’s charts — in person, (and uncounted thousands more, circumspectly, for my own information).

The 3 dates I predicted so far, and the 5/11 prediction this time, are from examining the timely planet patterns in the chart of the MasterMind of Nine-Eleven Op, (born June 12, 1924, for the information of anyone who may like to seek, or be, an astrologer with a ‘second opinion,’ corroborating or confuting), and he was the 41st POTUS and is the father of today’s POTUS, (and I don’t type the name here since all of this goes through the eavesdropping data traffic filters which flag such key words, but let’s call him Herbert, for short).

There is a bunch of evidence proving N.E.O. was rigged massmurder, and a bunch of Truth people working to prosecute the case, and I’ve seen enough to take it as a given certainty and so, jumped ahead to ask — and answer!, WHO dunnit? It darn sure wasn’t devised and directed by the dimwits now resident in The Fright House; they ain’t got the brains, they ain’t got the ‘pull’ and connections, and, really, they ain’t got the motive. Those two, (3, 4, 5 … however many you can name as the clique), are minions, lackeys, controlled agents, a k a ‘cut outs’ keeping the MasterMind’s fingerprints at least one degree of separation removed. Each one of the ones you name, when you trace back to where they came from, and who gave them their ‘big break,’ have all been recruited, groomed, and put in place by the same central-figure person.

Herbert dunnit.

Now, he works with a sidekick — Henry K. is all I say — and they are both Gemini’s so it’s unclear which is, or if either is, the ‘leader’ — it’s a Twins thing. And there are two more plotting conspirators in the innermost ‘brain trust,’ another Gemini, who is spouse of Herbert, and ANOTHER Gemini, who is mentor of Herbert and shares the birthday, 9 years older — June 12, 1915, and let’s nickname him Rock, a fella’ you heard of, look him up.

And all of this might be too much for sober sensibility to wrap a mind around, reading it here once, unexpected and surprising. Yet for the sake of argument, or discussion, maybe just allow it as a premise … and I say this is my operating method: examine Herbert’s chart, which so far is 3-out-of-3, and the next date resembling the last 3, is May 11, ’08, minus-6 or plus-42, (5/5 – 6/22 ’08).

My purpose in this is to warn people. Paul Revere II. All I know to do is stock groceries in your pantry, like a 30-day supply, perhaps. Do it p.d.q. If I’m wrong, well, you’ve got a lot of groceries stored ahead.

Secondarily, I pray somehow that premature exclamation of their target date derails it, or causes cancellation or postponement. And maybe play this cat-and-mouse, (or cops-and-robbers) ‘game’ all the way to the election, and run out the clock. They are running out of time and with each postponement, running into desperation. For one thing, any one of them could keel over any day, in Nature’s scheme of things, and all that. But mainly, their goose is cooked if the elections occur — then their control grip is displaced, (although, yeah, I can see their fallback ‘Plan McC’ and ‘Plan HRC’ but still, from their p.o.v., the optimum situation prevails now), this time next year there could be investigations and indictments and convictions and et cetera, game over.

Also, by my predicting the date AND the treason perpetrator, maybe somehow someone can ‘bell the cat,’ put the MasterMind under a public custody glare watching his every move, demanding accountability, sounding alarm to any who think of associating or conferencing with him that they are noticed and names are being taken; and, just in general, stabbing in the dark, throwing brickbats, firing grapeshot, letting ‘er rip, the prayer is that something hits home with someone or does some damage and can monkeywrench the best laid plans of the evil-doer devils. Please, God, tip the tables.

There are some indications of that possibility, as well. One thing is about the youngest of them, Ma Barker there, and in my reading of ‘the (planet) charts,’ her ‘hale and hearty’ is hurting, quite significantly, though you’d never hear of it in the newspapers. (That’s the thing I like about looking for myself at the planet news: I don’t have to take the mass media’s words, nor mute silence, for what’s happening.) However, if the Old Lady suddenly debilitates to ‘not happy,’ then NObody’s happy; and that knocks the main prop out from under Herbert, and that could monkeywrench everything, right there, that simple.

Two other goings-on I’ve heard about coming up in May, might impact events or derail the crime train in time, too. One is a nationwide truckers’ strike, a shutdown, no freight moves, (think: groceries), organizing for May 5, as the start, and continuing until Congress flinches, the truckers claim. All I know is what I read here: http://theamericandriver.com

Two is a planned POTUS trip to Jerusalem for a May 15 Sixtieth Anniversary ‘celebration’ of the Israeli invasion of Palestine, May 15, 1948. He was over there just last month. So was the creep Veep. So was McC. And who knows how often Henry K is there, but I think I read that he was, in recent weeks. I’m not saying anything, I don’t know what any of it means … only insinuating.

I do say there are some ‘trigger event’ N.E.O. II scenarios, which are easy to imagine.

The easiest is foreseeing something which is not exactly a pinpoint ‘event,’ and rather a widescale ‘collapse.’ Economic, stock market, societal, or otherwise. Essentially, what it looks like is, one morning we wake up and all the ATM machines are black from coast-to-coast. Or, for that matter, a widespread electrical power outage. How about the price of gasoline jumping to five dollars a gallon, some weekend? Eight dollars? Say, how ’bout them truckers … whatever that’s got to do with the price (and availability) of fuel. It boggles the imagination. Or we head for work and find a sign on the door: Closed – Out of Business. Whatcha gonna do, complain? In the immortal word of Veep: “So?”

Keep in mind that someone who can massmurder thousands of people — which you or I cannot imagine — is unlikely to have any limit on heinous abomination in insanity of powerlust — which is totally beyond our fathom, nevermind imagining. The perps are sick sick persons. Ptolemy ‘wrote the book’ (“Tetrabiblios’) in 150 A.D. on how to read an astrology chart; and in it, he describes what he calls “monstrous births” — and Herbert’s fills the bill. Ghastly. Absolutely ghastly. (But … you can always get a second opinion and not have to take my word for it. Call your astrologer.)

Anyway, the first idea is that N.E.O. II can be a fog over all of us instead of a flare-up in one location. And in the actuality of economic news we’re hearing, it isn’t like anyone would be surprised or find it hard to believe if some sort of ‘collapse’ develops, or is ‘announced’ to have developed. What we are NOT hearing in the news is: What do we do then? So, supposedly, we stand by and obey orders.

On the other hand (misdirection in true Gemini fashion) … N.E.O. II could be intensely dramatic, as N.E.O. was. As a background context, Herbert’s m.o. is the double-cross, the backstab — always has been, always will be, that’s his way. And, for some time in my view, Jughead Junior has been set up for it. First of all he knows too much and he doesn’t keep his mouth shut, he brags, and boasts, and retorts in snorts. (July 6, 1946, if you’re keeping score at home.) Plus, he’s a moron, brain damaged, and he’s being kept on ‘maintenance prescriptions,’ if you know what I mean. Mostly, though, all the blame everybody casts for everything broken or demolished, is attached to him. That’s called a scapegoat. (A k a, ‘frame job’ – think: Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, et al.) When the scapegoat ‘disappears,’ there is nothing for investigating hounds to pursue. The blame ‘goes’ with the name: Goat. Further, in this case, the Veep takes over as POTUS, and can get rigged up for ‘re-election,’ which finesses a double-cross of McC, who seems to take that as his purpose in life, (or a Veep ‘consolation prize’). Ironically, (as is compounded in all epic history), our most hope for a savior could be the one who we most blame for the predicament; that is, if Jughead Junior has a shred of cognition left to realize the double crosshairs he’s in, he could plead out for protection to save his skin. Turn the tables and turn State’s evidence. Cancel the Israel itinerary saying, “something’s come up” — heck, no, he won’t go, just like Vietnam — and no one would notice at all, except the trap setters. Maybe affairs(?), subpoenas(?), indictments(?) could cancel it for him. No one is going to tip him off, and he has to notice he’s alone since everyone has distanced themselves — Rummy bailed, Veep is in an undisclosed location, Rove ran away, Snow blew town, Candi lass is somewhere south of Mexico or east of Portugal, he don’t know, and his affectionately(?) named Lump-in-the-bed is mostly moved in at the Mayflower Hotel according to scuttlebutt reports. Clear the zone.

Now I have said nothing that everyone hasn’t already heard, just I connect all the dots, as each appears, in a circle of suspicion I have kept on hand for some time, and that one size fits them all in. There’s the Occam’s razor rule: the least uniform explanation that incorporates all the evidence. And anyone else can see the same configuration as long as we look from the perspective point where the planets align, then toss in the news o’ the day. ( Discoursed here.)

It was in my earlier regard of 5/11 that connected notice of, and attention to, the later news mention that 5/15 is a scheduled POTUS trip across the ‘Big Ditch,’ and I heard ‘River Styx.’ And, right along, all the other news can be seen, too, converging on that timeline point, approximately. So you heard it hear first, and, just saying, come what May, don’t believe a single thing ‘The News’ reports at the ‘Times.’

Now as a post script, an epilog to share smiling at how the circle closes round … I began this meaning to use snippets from the Comments upthread that prove, absolutely and scientifically, admissible in a Court of law, the physics of the N.E.O. ‘Official Legend’ is impossible, a physical impossibility. (Here’s the equations, for anyone interested: TinyURL.com/2p8kep ) The point was going to be that this Scheuerman voice is totally bogus and deserves disregard. Yet it has turned out better that I talked a big circle around the point, to end up saying twice as much: Both disregard him AND disregard him AT THIS TIME. His purpose is to distract, sapping attention, and to distract at this particular time. So perhaps I’m not so tardy after all.

The ironclad case is completely made, and verdict rendered, that Nine-Eleven Op was a hoax, and hoots and hollers from the peanut gallery cannot re-open and re-visit and re-argue it now. Now is the time to remand the guilty into custody and confinement.

I am always willing to revise my theory if additional evidence or theories become available. Science is all about changing your mind. When the preponderance of evidence points to a different direction you change your hypothesis. That’s what science is all about. If I can improve my theory by additional or changed information I certainly will.

You must be a religious man. Religion teaches people to swallow everything whole. Have faith believe everything I tell you. Don’t question the church. Believe and you will be saved. Science is the opposite. Question everything. Look at all the evidence until disproven. Admit no evidence unless it is proved.

If I find something that explains the collapse better than I already have, I will adopt it. Changing your mind is necessary for science. So far the controlled demolition people haven’t produced any credible evidence. All of their exclamations are just imaginary conceptions. If the amount of explosives that they postulate was used there would be evidence all over the place. Steel is torn to pieces by explosives. The evidence, however, shows the exterior columns were separated at the splices by the bolts breaking, and the core columns were separated at the welded splices, the weakest point. The CD’ers seem to think that if the largest building in the world collapsed it would not produce any loud sounds. There would be very loud impact sounds. That doesn’t mean there were explosives used. Every thing they can’t explain they attribute to controlled demolition. They can’t change their minds. They are not scientific.

No, you are completely bogus, obfuscating as much time-wasting as you can double-talk folks into following around your tail-chasing circular logic — which reduces to: It’s the way you say because you say it’s that way.

Item 1. “The evidence, however, shows the exterior columns were … and the core columns were ….”

“Were” WHAT? You got no EV I DENCE. CITE your EV I DENCE. Let’s see Exhibit A. Hold it up here, pass it around, show your EV I DENCE.

You ain’t GOT no eff’ing EVIDENCE — it was unlawfully hauled away and melted down, reMEMber????

Item 2. You say you are able to change your mind, given certain terms and conditions. Well, just go ahead and assume them for the sake of argument, and then, when and as if you were to look with a changed mind, WRITE what you see that proves to you the ‘Official Legend’ is falsehood of liars.

Taking the ‘other side’ for the sake of mental (hypothetical) argument, is a technique sometimes called a ‘gerdunken,’ a “thought experiment.” One practice of it is solitary chess, or in such a situation playing chess, where you turn the board around and play the ‘other side’s’ pieces, or ‘imagine’ playing the opposing pieces’ position … and THEN you know how to move ‘your’ pieces against the suppositions you think out (WRITE it, here) for the ‘opponent’s’ pieces.

I doubt you can do it. I call your bluff. You canNOT change your mind. You canNOT write down what points you see that oppose, or hold in contradiction to, your preset prerecorded prefabricated prevaricating untrue myth. NOthing — of all that could be presented, or shown you, could cause you to say — not even ‘hypothetically’ — that you see that the ‘Official CIA-dictated Legend’ is false, full of holes, and an unsubstantiated lie. BECAUSE you are PAID to repeat you ‘tape recorded’ memorized chanting ‘loop,’ ONLY.

You say you could change your mind but you canNOT ‘change’ your mind, and so you are a LIAR.

Item 3. This is only splitting hairs, though, arguing semantics. You say, “evidence points to a … hypothesis,” THAT’s what “science is all about.” No, it ain’t. ‘Science’ is only ‘all about’ ONE thing: Reproducible results. When I test, measure, or calculate a phenomenon, and get certain ‘results,’ and then you test, measure, or calculate the same thing and get the SAME results, and then ANYtime ANYwhere ANYone tests, measures, or calculates the same thing and gets the SAME results, then THAT is ‘reproducible results,’ and then THAT is a SCIENCE FACT. Such ‘results’ are what you call ‘evidence,’ but it does NOT ‘point to’ any ‘hypothesis’ or explanation, no, the ‘results’ just IS. Seems to EXIST, and can be relied on to be there, existing, everytime we check for it, and so we call it a ‘fact,’ and we consciously compose ‘universal laws’ made out of these scientific ‘facts’ — COGNITION (not ‘evidence’), ‘points to’ any ‘hypothesis,’ or ‘thesis,’ in thought … but none of all our scientific facts and universal laws ‘proves’ there is even an ‘actual’ Universe, it’s just always there, every Time we check, you and I both find there is a Universe, it’s a ‘reproducible result.’ (And if you don’t find a Universe then you made an error in your calculation, since everyone else always finds a Universe.) And that’s why Science is NOT Religion, because in ‘Religion’ every one does their own private tests, measurements, and calculations, and gets their own private results, and ‘religious stuff’ does not reproduce the same results every Time for everyone.

Item SMASHyou: For each Tower, the ACTION was NOT EQUAL (in opposite) REACTION.

Everybody knows this simple law of physics, Newton’s Law of Particle Motion, ever since he stated it 400 years ago: For every Action there is an equal and opposited Reaction.

And every Time anyone checks it, the Law always gives the same results: Energy in EXACTLY EQUALS Energy out.

Well, buddyboy, in the imploding buildings, the Action (which you allege) was NOT EQUAL to the Reaction (which we saw and was recorded and can be measured) … when you DO THE MATH — and the MOST thing you are trying to prevent, and the VERY thing the Commission was paid for and fraudulently did not deliver, nor FEMA, nor NIST, and the LAST thing you want, IS: anyone to DO THE MATH.

This ‘Action’ and ‘Reaction’ business is measured in units of a thing called Energy. That is a NUMBER. You can put a NUMBER on Energy. That’s how they charge you for your Electric bill each month — the electric meter PUTS A NUMBER ON how much (electrical) Energy you used, it COUNTED your Energy use.

So, you recite the ‘Official LIARS Legend’ saying that Gravity Energy collapsed the skyscrapers, and Gravity Energy ALONE. There was NO OTHER Energy in the deconstruction. ONLY Gravity MOVED that structure down to a pile on the ground with a huge volume of pulverized microscopic dust welling up a massive cloud of gassy smoke out the sides and leaving that dust spread across Manhattan.

That’s a lot of Energy, big number, big big big big BIG number. So do the math, what IS that NUMBER.

There is a number for how much Energy Gravity has in it, that’s your alleged ‘activating force’ in Action.

And there is a number for how much Energy is required to make concrete into dust and move the particles apart into a certain volumetric size of dustcloud, and that number is the measure of Reaction.

And Gravity ain’t got enough IN it to cause the measureable force effected OUT of that Tower. And you are off, NOT EQUAL, by over ‘times a hundred.’ Gravity has less than one percent of the Energy measured in the Reaction of the Tower, to ‘something,’ some ‘Action,’ that happened to it.

How much number does Gravity got? Well, that’s easy. Multiply the force of Gravity times the Mass of the Tower times the Height of the center-of-mass, (usually approximated as half-the-total-height). And everyone agrees, fairly closely, what the force of Gravity was that day, what the Mass of the Tower was, and what the Height of the Tower was. Plug and crank, presto: There was no more than 150,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) of Energy, that Gravity had the POTENTIAL to put into Action.

And how much number of Energy is the Reaction got of the Tower? Well, you figure from the volume of the cloud, and the mass of the particles of concrete dust in it, (which you know started in the initial condition of being the mass of concrete, and in the volume of the Tower), and you ‘scale it out’ to the size it went, that is, you ‘divide’ the volume of the full cloud by the volume it started as in the Tower — how many times ‘bigger’ did it ‘swell.’

Because the cloud is a ‘gas,’ (it ain’t a liquid, and it ain’t a solid, and the only other thing it could be is a gas, a ‘vapor’), and when it has concrete dust particles suspended in it, then it is still a ‘gas,’ a ‘dirty’ gas, with concrete dust particles suspended in it, but a gas.

And the only Energy which expands a gas (such as ‘air’) volume, is heat Energy. (Well, there is pressure Energy, barometric, which can expand or contract gas volume, but the barometric pressure on the Tower to start with and on the cloud to end with, stayed the same, there was no change in the before-and-after pressures — atmospheric pressure at sea-level — and so pressure ‘cancels out,’ it didn’t change and cause the gas cloud of concrete particles to move apart expanding volume. And the mass stayed the same — the number of atoms in the concrete in the Tower equals the number of atoms in the concrete dust particles in the cloud; certainly there was no MORE concrete atoms in the cloud than there was in the Tower, and somewhat there was LESS, but you can get agreement on an estimate of how much LESS that ‘somewhat’ was, say, ‘half’ the concrete in the Tower was pulverized into the particles in the dust cloud gas. ‘Half’ or ‘a quarter’ or ‘a tenth’ or whatever percentage you want, although you are going to sound like a ridiculous LIAR if you pick a number so small that it’s not enough to lay a layer of concrete dust an inch deep across Manhattan which everybody saw, is recorded, and shows a more accurate measure than you can lie about.

So after you pulverize concrete into dust particles so small they float in air, suspended in a ‘gas cloud,’ then in order to expand that cloud you have to add heat Energy or subtract pressure Energy, and for the Nine Eleven Op dust cloud of gas, the air pressure did not change — cancel that, and therefore only heat Energy CAUSED the motion EFFECT on the particles into expanding volume.

One ‘reproducible result’ which is the scientific ‘fact’ of the Law of Gas phenomena, says that when the pressure is constant, then gas volume increases in direct proportion to gas temperature increase. (But you can check it for yourself — test, measure, calculate.) So, to expand a gas volume ten times as much as you start with, you ALWAYS have to raise the heat temperature ten times as much as you start with. That would be heat Energy.

And THAT is how we know the answer to the question: “And how much number of Energy is the Reaction got of the Tower?” We measure how far the concrete (mass in the dust cloud gas) expanded — which is easy, since there is a photographic record of the cloud to measure — and then we know the heat Energy increased that ‘far’ to cause the expanding.

And then we get a NUMBER for the heat Energy. Starting at what was, oh, whatever number you want to pick, say, 50 degrees Farenheit the morning of Nine Eleven Op, but you can look it up or you can make up a LIAR’s ridiculous number. Pick your number and then multiply it times what it increased in expanding that gas cloud of concrete dust.

The heat Energy has to be enough to heat each particle of concrete dust as much as it heats each molecule of air — the dust ‘droplets’ are the same temperature as the air they’re in, you can’t have ‘cold’ concrete particles staying floating suspended in ‘heated’ air, they drop to the ground. So the heat Energy calculation has to increase the temperature of all the concrete mass in the Tower as much as the temperature of the air is increased, and it takes a lot more heat Energy to heat concrete than to heat air. It’s a big big big big BIG number. But we know what it is.

The Reaction was at least 10,000,000 KWH of Energy coming OUT of that Tower.

So, to review: ACTION: less than 150,000 KWH. REACTION: more than 10,000,000 KWH.

Look, buddyboy, your ‘Gravity alone caused it’ Action does NOT EQUAL the Reaction effected. Numbers don’t LIE, only LIARS LIE. That would be Bushbutcher, and you if he’s moving your lips.

Now you can see all this figured out and the numbers calculated, in REAL science, at this website TinyURL.com/2p8kep

So, physics proves and is admissible as evidence in a legal Court of criminal law, that there was more Energy than only Gravity involved in committing the Nine Eleven Op implosion of three skyscrapers in Manhattan. Gravity did not act alone. So the ‘Official LIAR Legend’ saying Gravity DID act alone, is false.

Period. And if you say Gravity dropped those Towers, then you are a LIAR. And if you say I say there were explosives in those Towers, however obvious it seems that there must have been, or you say I say, “the amount of explosives that they (I) postulate was used,” as you wrote in the above comment, then you are a LIAR, since I do NOT say there were explosives and I do NOT say any ‘amount of explosives.’ You do not make me a liar by putting YOUR LIAR WORDS in my mouth. You do make you a LIAR by putting Bushbutcher LIAR WORDS in your own mouth yourself.

What I say, r e a d . v e r y . s l o o o w l y . L I A R, is: The ‘Official Legend’ is FALSE, not true, Gravity alone did NOT drop those Towers in the recorded and measureable way they were dropped.

I do NOT say what happened. I say what did NOT happen. I say that what you say is FALSE, that what you say happened did NOT happen.

And besides, you don’t have any EV I DENCE for what you say happened.

I just gave you scientifically factual evidence that Gravity was NOT happenin’ enough.

Notice especially that it does not matter if the Tower was on fire or not, does not matter whether the steel was molten, softened, or rigid, does not matter how long the trusses were or if they broke at the extreme end first or the core end first, does not matter what sequence the flooring support failed — top down, or bottom up, does not matter what any eyewitness says about hearing explosions or not, does not matter how come the jets were removed on goofball ‘rehearsal’ missions hundreds of useless miles away, does not matter whether there were or were not religious fanatic hijackers aboard any planes and for that matter does NOT matter what model of plane it was or how much fuel was left in the tank.

Notice especially that the calculation of the kinetic Energy, in the Reaction effected on the Tower, does not count what it took to blow chunks of steel out the sides; does not count the how much heat Energy went vertical, out the top (as heated air rising), without any dust in it displaying a volume to measure; does not count what it took to blow desks and papers and carpets and asbestos and steel and aluminum and everything that wasn’t concrete into pulverized smithereens — 10,000,000 KWH is only counting the concrete dust; does not include Energy it took to cause flashes of light, to cause sound waves and percussive shock waves which knocked people over, to melt cars on the street and blow some apart; does not include the heat Energy put into making glowing hot puddled globs of metal; does not include the instantaneous Energy to vaporize thousands of human beings.

All that matters is the force of Gravity, the distance to the surface of the Earth over which Gravity acted, and the Mass of the Tower. Whether the Tower is on fire or not, the Mass is the same; … actually, as fire separates carbon molecules that float away as smoke soot, the Mass decreases, but I’ll give you the full recorded Mass of the building, and you can even double it if you want and call it the weight of the furniture and contents and human bodies and the airplane sticking in the side of it … but you can’t have one hundred times the recorded Mass of the building … and even if you could, ya’ know what? — if the Tower was twice as tall and a hundred times more mass, Gravity still ain’t got enough Action IN it to force what came OUT of the Reaction of that Tower.

You say ‘Gravity did it all’ and you are a LIAR, buddyboy. You speak FALSE.

Now you go DO THE MATH and figure the physics, and if you are not schooled in that enough to do it yourself or you forget how, then admit the result obtained by someone who CAN do the math and figure it out and proves the ‘Official LIAR Legend’ is false, doesn’t add up BY THE NUMBERS.

And don’t come around here writing LIAR smoke screens to waste everyone’s time about trusses and explosions and who is a credible or uncredible witness and what you heard and which report you read saying what. Don’t say ANYthing more, it only tangles up a web of more LIES trying to weave cover over the first LIE you practiced saying.

Get this: Gravity did NOT do it all. And get: Out of here. No one’s got time for your subversive seditious treason.

It is time to get some guilty looking Bushbutchers into custody to answer questions about the extra Energy IN the Towers, which we KNOW was there, that they have not said answers for, and have lied about.

Arthur, this quote will certainly get the attention of any bonafide scientist.

“Science is all about changing your mind”

Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that science is all about keeping your mind open?

The concrete facts that we work with do not change. THE TRUTH DOES NOT CHANGE…1 + 1 = 2

The pythagorean theorum does not change. That is the beauty of science. There are eternal truths that
we can adhere to and always depend on to formulat a hypothisis.

My opinion is that the changes you made, in your WTC7 building collapse theory, had a lot more to do with fitting the revision to a preconceived story than using scientific method to rewrite a theory.

RE: Quote

“Since it
was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was cleared. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse.”

became this in your revised (theory?)
Quote:

“In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.”

I don’t really see much science involved here.
For my future reference, how many firemen were in building seven when the decision was made to order them out?…G:

Your comments did indeed catch some attention, and I might add that Meremark has more than a little scientific knowledge. His information about the amount of energy expended on that fateful day
looks pretty unimpeachable to me. Maybe you could get your debunker friends from JREF to help you out on this, cause the whole bunch of you have some splainin to do on the scientific level and also on the accountability level.

Meremark

Thanks for clarifying the “Science is all about changing your mind” thing. You’re the kind of person that Ronald Weick would love to interview on Hardfire… 😆

Arthur is conspicuous in his absence here, while this is the time that he should be explaining the reasons for the WTC7 revisions. If this is not explained I guess we’ll just have to assume that they were done to fit the official story. What would Pomaroo say?
Or has he already spoken?

Jim Hoffman did the arithmetic on the energy required to produce the dust cloud at WTC 7. It would take approximtely ten times more energy than could be generated from a collapse due to the forces of gravity.

“Since it was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the fires would have burned out without any local or global collapse.”
• How many times have I heard the ‘troofers’ say that “no moodern steel high rise has ever collapsed from fire” ? If they are right than there would have been every expectation that the fire would have burned out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the 2 towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was cleared. Maby with 3 giant buildings collapsing from fire, that there should be some concern about these particular types of buildings collapsing from fire? There was damage to the south side of the building and one wall section was buldging out. Maby there was some weakneses in these particular buildings which all were all built by the Port Authority who, by the way, is excempt from all national, state and local, fire and building codes. Building 7 did suffer global collapse from fire after several hours of uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse thanks to the brilliant decision to evacuate the building in anticipation of collapse.”

Now if the ‘troofers’ were in charge of the fire in building 7, we can only assume they would have fought the fire,- since they believe that no fire resistive buildeing could collapse from fire-, with the result that, the building also would have collapsed killing many firefighters.

Quote: By the way this is not my theory of collapse it ‘s merely a statement of what happened.
“In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building did collapse about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.” That was simply a reporters mistake.
Now I did make the missguied statement that in any building raviged by fire there is the possibliity of collapse. Now after thinking about that I realizeded that it was untrue. I do have true faith in any fire resistive high-rise buildings built to the 1938 code, such as the Empire State building. There are many many high rise buildings that I believe could stand up to any possible fire within even if startd by plane crashes. That is why I withdrew the statement.

You know how us troofer’s are: We want an open and independent investigation. One of the issues on the collapse of all three buildings is that there is evidence of bombs in the basement. If the core columns were taken out it would sure explain about why they fell. Using the laws of odds and statistics we come up with a very slim chance that these buildings came down because of fire.

I realise that Bu$hco would never consider this possibility, but as we know it was attempted once in the past.

I’m not saying who did it, but it appears that the core columns could have been compromised.
Conclusions can be drawn only after we consider all the possibilities for collapse.

OK so I said it…”there is evidence of bombs in the basement”. If you like , I’ll restate it as… “If evidence of bombs in the basement is proven”.
I’m sure that Pomaroo and Gravy Train, (in their psuedo-intellectual bubble) will be disappointed in the latter…G:

If there were bombs in the basement that took out the core columns first at that location than we can assume that the core began falling first. The antenna was strongly connected to the core columns and would have reflected exactly the core movement. Since the antenna on Building 1 did not show movement until the entire building top was tilting to the south due to south wall failure, we have to question why the antenna would start tilting to the east along with the building top.

If the core columns began falling from the bottom, they would immediately put all the floors into tension pulling in on the exterior walls. Some of the videos would have shown these exterior walls bowing inward all the way up the sides of the buildings. If the exterior wall connections failed the entire interior structure would collapse into the cellar. This might leave the exterior walls standing without lateral support, since the floors were responsible for providing lateral support for the perimeter walls. Without lateral support and with the inevitable impacts on the exterior walls by the cascading floors and core columns, these walls would in turn fail and the entire building would have come down in a very different manner than it did.

There would be no reason for the east wall of the south tower to have caved in first and started the top tilting to the east and the buckling of the entire column structure along the exact level of the east wall cave in which happened at the fire levels. The videos would not show the entire building tops descending and obliterating the buildings from the top down.

If it were proven that there were bombs in the basement the next step would be to find out everything possible about what the effects of the blast were and how many columns were severed or damaged. There are numerous assumptions that could be made, but the facts that show what really happened are what we need for an accurate investigation.

The construction of the hat truss looks like it gave a lot of integral strength to the core columns, and the external columns, so with the diagonal bracing would carry a lot of weight in suspension and if the core columns were compromised would distribute the weight to the external columns.

In this scenario the floor joists would all be in tension and the building would be ready for final demolition processes. This is all speculation though and shouldn’t even be considered untill all of the evidence is considered by experts in the related fields of engineering and science and evaluated in an independent investigation.

One thing for sure is that it would take a lot more energy than gravity, jet fuel and common combustables would produce to generate enough heat to fuse concrete and steel together such as has been found on the WTC site. And this is not speculation or theory. The evidence is in the museum…G:

Where is your proof that it couldn’t happen. The impact of floors comming together with increased velocity with bar joist steel attached could probably produce a compact mass of fused concrete and steel. This fusion could happen just with the impacts but there was probably some heat generated.

Well, you know how I am Arthur. I believe we direly need an investigation to get the evidence on the table. It certainly exists, and there is more of it than can be seen in the museums. I don’t feel qualified enough to do the scientific testing on the stuff, but any blacksmith can tell you that the fusion of steel and concrete didn’t happen because of pressure, unless it was somewhere deep in the earths crust.

This is an important enough matter that some of this material should be in the hands of a team of engineers and physicists so it can be determined how this amalgamation was formed. Wouldn’t you agree?

It’s really time to do something positive about this and there are no ifs, ands, probablies, coulds or buts about it…G:

I would certainly agree that we should have everything examined by engineers and physicists but we should first examine if ordinary physical forces could have produced this amalgamation and not fly off the handle with wild ideas about explosives and controlled demolition.

Who knows,it could be something more than explosives and controlled demolitions. After all we need to keep our minds open if we are seeking the truth. First we need to assemble the evidence and testimony instead of working backward like what we have seen in these last seven years. The NIST has not even finished their hypothesis and now we see your report on WTC7 as a revised edition.

An examination of the amalgamation will show the temperatures and pressure that were present when it was formed as well as what is contained there-in. Then we will have some data that can be used to explain it.

“we should first examine if ordinary physical forces could have produced this amalgamation”

You did agree that we should have everything examined, however you used the but word and mentioned that we should first examine an (if).
how in the clear blue world can you examine an if?…G:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its 24-month building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster on August 21, 2002. NIST also released the final plan for its investigation at the same time. This plan, which reflects comments received in writing and at a June 24, 2002 public meeting held in New York City may be found at http://wtc.nist.gov.

—————————-

Status of Steel and its Analysis:

NIST has in its possession over 200 pieces of World Trade Center steel. The vast majority of the pieces are of significant size and include perimeter prefabricated column-spandrel elements, rectangular box beams, wide flange sections, truss sections, and channels. NIST also has in its possession several smaller pieces, such as bolts. NIST has cataloged most of the pieces and is in the process of completing a database with photographic records and member markings. In addition, NIST is reviewing additional steel and other artifacts stored by the Port Authority at JFK airport to identify pieces of interest to its investigation.

Based on a correlation of information on the grades of steel used in the WTC towers and identifying marks on the recovered steel, it has been possible to locate nine of the 12 steel strengths used for the perimeter columns and nine of the 11 steel strengths used for the spandrel beams. An ongoing effort is seeking to locate pieces of the remaining steel grades.

Also, approximately 250 chemical analyses have been conducted. The analyses indicate that the majority of the perimeter columns were made of WEL-TEN 60, 70, or 80 steels. These columns were fabricated from steel obtained from Yawata Steel, now Nippon Steel.

Nippon Steel representatives have offered to cooperate fully in assisting NIST and have begun to provide useful information to the investigation, including the proprietary specifications for their steels. So far, tests by NIST indicate that the higher strength steels are micro-alloyed steels (similar to modern pipeline steels) or CrMo steels that would meet U.S. specifications for heat resisting steels. Metallographic analysis shows a range of structures, including coarse and fine ferrite/pearlite structures and bainite and/or tempered martensite.

NIST also has identified the fabricators of the steel floor trusses (Laclede Steel) and has met with representatives of the firm. The firm has been fully cooperative in providing information on the steels used and the design and tests of the trusses. Laclede documents show that the trusses were fabricated with ASTM A36 and ASTM A242 or A441 steels and that Laclede’s A36 steel was routinely made at yield strengths of 50-55 ksi (well in excess of the 36 ksi yield strength in the specification). The other two types of steel have minimum yield strengths of 50 ksi.

NIST has characterized the effects of high temperature on the primer paint used on the perimeter columns. This work indicates that microscopic “mud-cracking” of the paint occurs at approximately 250 ºC. At this temperature there would be little or no visible discoloration or damage to the primer paint. The paint becomes friable and can easily crumble or become powdery at a temperature of about 700 ºC. At this temperature there would be visible discoloration and damage to the primer paint (and the steel would likely have softened significantly). Thus steel that shows little visible evidence of discoloration or damage to the primer paint still could have experienced high temperature levels due to the fires. NIST is continuing to investigate other methods to measure the temperature excursions of the steel.

At 700 deg C there would start to be visible discoloration and damage to the paint and this would indicate significant softening of the steel. 600 deg C equals about 1100 deg F and has to be concidered a ‘high temperature’ of steel since steel would have started to weaken at this temperature. If we assume from NIST’s statement that there would be little visible paint damage at 600 deg C, than there would be little visible evidence of paint damage on steel that had been weakened by heat.

In order tom find out whether the steel attained a temperature over 250 deg C we would have to examine it microscopicly for mud cracking.

What a shame that the steel was not available to the engineers doing the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. They were told that the money would help offset the losses to the owners. That would be Silverstein who made a ton of money from insurance claims. Not only that, but the Mafia hauled off 250 tons of steel while investigators were denied access. Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik confirmed a report in The New York Post that investigators were looking into accusations that organized crime figures, in the confusion after the attack, had carted away as much as 250 tons of scrap. metal to yards in New Jersey and on Long Island.

Recovered structural steel from the World Trade Center was examined as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation to provide data on potential temperature excursions seen by the steel for input and validation of the fire and thermal finite element models. While numerous experimental techniques were appraised for use during this study, two proved to be practical: assessment of the primer paint on the structural elements and examination of the steel microstructure. Results from these two techniques are presented. Evaluation of primer paint from 21 exterior panel sections, which represent approximately 3% of the panels from fire-involved floors, was conducted and indicated that only three locations may have experienced temperatures over 250 °C. Steel microstructures taken from these and other areas on exterior panels exposed to pre-collapse fires showed no evidence of exposure to temperatures exceeding 625 °C for times longer than the detectable lower limit of 15 min. The lack of high-temperature excursions observed during this analysis may be related to the protection afforded by intact spray-applied fire-resistant material on the components at the time of exposure.
the expectations of the designers and the specifications called for in the
steel contracts. Material substitutions of higher strength steels were
common in the perimeter columns and floor trusses.
Furthermore, most mechanical test results were consistent with values
expected based on the historical literature. Exceptions include:
• Yield strengths of undamaged steels in rolled wide-flange core
columns were lower than historical literature indicates as typical.
• The recovered bolts were stronger than contemporaneous
literature indicates.

The tower footprints were one acre in size. There were many cellar areas in the 16 acre site that were not under the towers and were protected more or less from the collapse. I would welcome another investigation by recognized experts.

I agree that the footprints were one acre in size, but the debris field covered a large part of the 16 acres.
The Warners Brothers gift shop was in the main concourse at the top level of the basements, and on the East side of WTC2. It could have been shielded by WTC4, so I suppose Bugs Bunny is a moot point.

From what I can see, WTC1 and WTC2 didn’t fall into their own footprints, while WTC 7 seemed to fall without much damage to the surrounding buildings.

Here is a close up of WTC2 as it begins to collapse. I don’t see the banana peel effect, but more of a sudden disintegration followed by upward explosive forces. This sure don’t look like something that happened from the forces of gravity?

You can see the east wall being pulled inwards by the bar joist floors. This is what tilted the building to the east and than south east as the damage from the plane at the south wall came into effect. The pealing outwards would not occur until the top of the building decended further down.

By quickly starting and stopping the video to freeze the action I can see the corner of the building vaporizing along with the uprights of the wall. There doesn’t appear to be much that is falling in these close-ups, but it does look like there is suddenly a lot of heat energy concentrated there and profound dissipation of the concrete and steel resulting in upward explosions.

If this is the work of gravity, it certainly has some properties that defy the observations from the Newtonian perspective…G:

I however see the corner of the wall caving inward. Actually the entire east wall caved inward but this is out of the camera view. When the camera pans downward it looks like the debris is moving upward. Vaporizing is a strong word. I would use the idea of being obscured by smoke.

This is my reply to Richard Gage and his EA 9/11 troofers.Rapid onset of “collapse” —There was no rapid onset of collapse. The outside column support walls in both Towers were seen to be bowing inward well before the buildings collapsed.

Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a full second prior to collapse —There was a loud sound from building 7 which had an interior collapse before the outside wall collapsed. This interior collapse would probably sound like an explosion.

Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at near free-fall speed (i.e. the [core] columns offered no resistance)—The collapse was not symmetrical. The top of Tower two tilted to the east, and the top of Tower 1 tilted to the south. The core columns had no lateral support after the floors collapsed. The weak column splices allowed the core columns to buckle easily after the floors collapsed.

“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment — Only building 7 collapsed into itself because the core collapsed first pulling in the outside walls. Still there was damage to the surrounding buildings. The towers did extensive damage to all the buildings surrounding them. The steel broke up at the weak column splices. To say this breakupwas for shipment is ridiculous.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds. —This would have happened at any 110 story building collapsing.

Tons of molten metal found in basement by demolition workers.—There were battery rooms with tons of lead. The plane had tons of aluminum. Both of these metals melt at ordinary fire temperatures.

Chemical signature of thermate (a high-tech incendiary) found in slag and dust samples. —There were 400 different chemicals found by the ETA. The chemical signature for all kinds of reactions could be found in these various chemicals.

Rapid oxidation and intergranular melting found (by FEMA) in the structural steel samples. —This was found in only one beam and could have happened over time from leaking acid or some such other chemical.

Foreknowledge of “collapse” by First Responders, media, NYPD, FDNY, etc. —Foreknowledge is a strange word to use. The Fire Dept. realizing that there were serious fires and extensive damage to the south wall, bulging walls, strange creaking sounds coming from building 7, and having no readily available water supply to fight the fire, evacuated the building and the surrounding streets and adjacent buildings due to the possibility of collapse.

The wall did indeed cave inward, but also dematerialized. Watch it frame by frame and observe it with unbiased clarity.

The camera pans quickly downward at .22 into the video where you see large elongated debris that looks like parts of the wall. Watch this frame by frame and notice the streams behind the pieces as they fall, and that many of them vanish before your eyes. I don’t have any preconceived theories about what is happening here, but there appears to be a huge amount of concentrated heat energy in this area.

In regards to the term “troofer”: Pursuing truth in the defence of Liberty is no vice…G:

Arthur, I’m sure that you have seen this CBS News video. CBS had two choppers in the air plus the reporters in the video who described several large explosions when WTC 2 collapsed. The explosions are evident on the video with clouds of smoke and ash rising high in the air. Does this look like gravity at work?

So we go from vaporizing to dematerializing. How interesting. The steel after it is obscured by smoke and dust just disappears. How do you know it disappeared if it is obscured by smoke? Why would the steel suddenly dematerialize after it buckled inwards and started the total collapse of the building? Where did all the steel in the rubble pile come from if it vaporized?

Come on Geezer you are starting to sound like the troofers. I don’t call them truthers because that would be lying. These people are not looking for the truth. They can’t handle the truth.

The truth is that these 9/11 Architects and Engineers don’t know the first thing about how and why these buildings collapsed. They should all be prevented from building any more buildings until they have had a college course in fire engineering.

And I must mention, Arthur, that you are beginning to sound like some of the company you keep. From my viewpoint it looks like there are a whole lot of people working in concert to change the story of What Really happened on 9/11.

In case you are getting tired of reading the NIST report and it’s subsequent revisions here is a little review of what Barry Jennings had to say about building 7. Never mind that your favorite Troofer *Alex Jones* is on the video, just grit your teeth and enjoy.

First of all the Fox news report showed a video of Building 7’s collapse. The reporter mentions that it’s a video twice in the story.

The BBC story was different in that they did announce over the air that the building collapsed before it happened. Remember there was a large gouge taken out of the south wall of Building 7 by the exterior columns of Tower 1 pealing out from the collapsing Tower and there was also extensive damage to the south west corner. Several large fires grew out of control within Building 7 and after a survey of the building by the F.D. showed a wall near the southwest corner bulging outward no doubt from expanding floors, and with no readily available water to fight the fires due to destruction of the water mains, the Fire Chief in command ordered an evacuation of the building.

With all the commotion at ground zero and determination by the Fire Commander that the building might collapse and the necessity to evacuate a large area ‘collapse zone’ around the building, everyone including reporters were ordered out of the ‘collapse zone’ and someone must have assumed and reported over the air that the building definitely was going to collapse. It’s a short jump for the BBC reporter to mishear the report and assume that the building already had collapsed.

Remember it was a highly emotional time and there was even an assumption that someone heard a ‘countdown’ allegedly because a Red Cross worker had his hand over his radio and the person assumed he was trying to cover up the countdown.

I would have to see the melted steel myself. The picture is too vague. The gun could have been melted by coming in contact with high current from the electrical system as the Towers collapsed.

By the way Barry Jennings didn’t say there were any bodies in the lobby of Building 7. If there were any bodies I am sure he would have said so. He said the place was destroyed as if King Kong came through there: just what you would expect if a large gouge was taken out of the south wall by the heavy outside wall columns of the North Tower as they pealed outwards. This would surly have sounded like an explosion, and could have destroyed part of the stairway that Jennings was trying to descend.

For Barry to say the towers were still there after the south east corner was gouged out and the middle of the south wall of Building 7 was destroyed right down to the lobby is hard to believe.

Arthur, are you concerned at all about the truth on how building seven came down? Are just going to keep on talking about could have’s instead of pursuing the truth? I really don’t want to get into all of the could haves (speculation) on this subject, but I do want to take an objective view of all the evidence in every way, shape and form. I don’t care who you are, speculation doesn’t get it in an honorable court of law…G:

“According to my theory several interior columns on the east side of Building 7 collapsed on floor 12 due to heated, sagging steel beams contracting on cooling after the fires burned out. The sagging contracting (shortening) long span steel “I” beams pulled the key interior columns out of plumb. Because of the large areas that each interior column supported, the column failure spread immediately upwards as evidenced by the east roof shed collapsing into the building. Because the column failures put all the floors above the initial collapse into suspension (tension) the collapse spread west into the core as evidenced by the west roof shed collapsing into the building 5 seconds after the east roof shed collapsed.
This collapse of the entire interior would have made a terrific sound all before the outside frame started to descend. It could easily have been interpreted as an explosion.”
Arthur Scheuerman
Ret. B.C. FDNY

Yes it is until I hear a better theory. Perhaps NIST has finished their ‘take’ after 7 years studying it?

Buy the way my first report on building 7 contained the statement, “Since it was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. ( Aren’t the A & E 9/11 truthers fond of repeating that no fireproof building has ever collapsed due to fire. If thats true than there should have been every expectation that the fires would burn out without any local or global collapse.)

I continued, “However, given that the
towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was cleared. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the building.”

The truthers don’t ever mention Building 5’s collapse, since it would tend to reinforce the idea that there was something wrong with the WTC buildings.

I continued, “The possibility that some weaknesses exist in high-rise buildings constructed with long-span floors and cores without lateral bracing and weak column splices necessitates that all possible failure mechanisms be studied to determine the cause of failure and means to prevent such failure.”

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth with there “controlled demolition theory” cut off all possibility of their determining the collapse cause, if it was due to design deficiencies or building construction failure. Hardly a logical stance for such an organization unless they are trying to prevent any necessary Building Code changes which would make their buildings more costly and more difficult to construct.

About your statement about my being a member of A & E 9/11 for truth, when I first heard of them I tried to join them but have since been cut off from any communication with them after they read some of my reports.

I don’t think that I said you belonged to A&E9/11 for truth. I did mention Scholars for Truth & Justice though.You’re still on the roster there. It lists you as Arthur Scheuerman AAS Fire Science, BS Phychology.

BTW, I belong to A&E9/11 for truth, but have my own ideas about what really happened as do all of the individual members. If you want to see an example of “hive mentality” check out the JREF forums…G:

Well, I hope that “We The People” don’t have to drag him out of there kicking and screaming. We all know how he loves his role as “Commander In Chief”,
but a few of his cronies Rummy, Wolfwit, Bolt-On, Pearl,and various other crooks, have had to leave under embarrassing circumstances) so maybe the rest of them will back off on invading another country and we’ll get a new president. The way it looks we might even get back all three branches of government and return to being a democracy…G:

Every day is a historical one and things are moving, as Buddy Holly once said, faster than a roller coaster. A medicine man on steroids would never be able to keep up with all of the crap that is shoveled out by the NWO. I don’t really like mushrooms, but that’s the only thing that will grow in crap without any light….G:

Just wondering if anyone else has noticed this comment on tvnewslies.orglast year.
Ronald Weick had a few ridiculous comments there also.

ironworker

I have studied most of the facts of 911 for about 3 years. Being a Union Ironworker/ welder for 27 years puts me in a class of people who understand structual steel buildings. The demo end of it also. The Twin towers were at the time and still at todays standards amazingly strong. The innercore of 47 beams could support 10 times the weight they were holding. Some coworkers went to ground zero to lend a hand the day after. They were turned away. One of them brought a camera and took many pic’s. When they returned I sat with them and viewed all the pictures. Most of the innercore beams where precut on 45 degree angles. They said the odor in the air was thermite. Molten metal everywhere. I beams thrown outward great distances. Buildings 3,4,5 and 6 damaged beyond but all still standing. Because there were no explosives in them. And then building 7 one of the strongest fortified buildings ever built just falls 8 hrs later due to fire. Never in history has a steel building fell from any fire. But on 911 3 fell in there on footprint that day. After they asked me what I thought. We all said pretty much at the same time it is a demolishion job. Its the first time we all agreed on something since I knew these men. What needs to happen is a new non Bush investigation. Rallie’s of protest,marches. Spread the word and educate yourselves about just who is really running this country. New World order. Ilumminotti. Check out the history of puppet Bush and all the bush gangsters. There is no question in my mind that 911 was there new pearl harbor they all wanted so they could go to war. No bid contracts to make billions. They cant even lie straight. America needs to pull their head out of their ass and start reading the facts. And dont count on the media. They have that controlled fully. I think it will never happen we as American get it together. Instead we do what they want fighting between ourselves. I never in my life thought our country was run as it is. Our fore fathers said if the banks and corporations buy into and control our republic we are doomed. Our democracy is being challenged like never before. If we do nothing then we deserve to lose our freedom.

Did you see the leaked confidental NIST report on Building 7.
It reports a surge of flames out several windows on the 13 th floor just prior to collapse. This reinforces my theory of sagging beams contracting on cooling after fire die down and breaking the connections in the exactic location I theorized but on a different floor.

Well, so far it shows that there was probably a sudden positive pressure in that area of the building, which provides an axiom that could result in a number of different theories.

I wonder what else there is to release. It is ridiculous that the NIST is holding information that can be released at their convenience. What’s the point unless there is a valid investigation going on and everything is on the table. It’s against the law to withhold evidence no matter who you are and it’s about time that Bu$hco is made to answer for it…G:

“Most of the innercore beams where precut on 45 degree angles. They said the odor in the air was thermite. Molten metal everywhere. I beams thrown outward great distances. Buildings 3,4,5 and 6 damaged beyond but all still standing. Because there were no explosives in them. And then building 7 one of the strongest fortified buildings ever built just falls 8 hrs later due to fire. Never in history has a steel building fell from any fire. But on 911 3 fell in there on footprint that day. After they asked me what I thought. We all said pretty much at the same time it is a demolishion job. Its the first time we all agreed on something since I knew these men. What needs to happen is a new non Bush investigation.”

Yep, there are a lot of folks around just like Ironworker, and also a large faction called the silent majority, who want to take our country back.
A government that is accountable with all three branches controlled by our representatives in congress rather than a secretive cabal that controls
the whole thing and is ran like a corporation…G:

New information from NIST shows that there was an expulsion of flame from the 13th floor just prior to the collapse of Building 7. This is evidence of a floor falling and acting like a bellows and expelling fire and smoke just as it did when Tower 1 collapsed.

Long span, steel beam supported floors can fail from the beams expanding and sagging from the heat of a large fire and then contracting after the fire dies down. The force of the contracting long span, steel floor detaches its connection to the columns, and this detachment allows the remaining sagging floor on the other side of the columns to pull the columns out of alignment. When a column deflects from ten to twenty degrees it can no longer support its load and buckles.

With the large floor areas and long spans in Building 7, NIST has shown that a column failure would travel immediately up to the roof, failing all the columns above because the design did not allow for redistribution of the loads. This type of failure can put all the long span floors above the column failure into suspension with large lateral forces on the connections. It is my assumption that this tensile force pulled in a line of core columns collapsing the core and thus the entire building.

Well, thats just great Arthur, an assumption based on a release of unproven information. Thanks for sharing that, and you can be thankful that there isn’t a paid bunch of left wing shills to debunk this questionable state of affairs.

All I can say is that I won’t be coming up with any assumptions based on this NIST release, and I won’t be losing track of any evidence that is in existence. The possiblities are many and the evidence is prolific, that the WTC buildings didn’t come down by fire.

It is a possibility though that there was an explosion in the basement that compromised the core columns and there is viable evidence to prove it.

NIST must have a video or pictures of the expulsion of smoke and my assumption is based on my analysis of the construction and the fires. It turns out there was an extensive fire on the 13th floor and computer analysis done after I made my report shows that long span steel beams after elongating and sagging and then cooling, contract with enough force to disconnect the connections.

What viable evidence? They found one steel beam (not a column) that was corroded and that corrosion probably happened when the building was in use, possibly from a chemical leak occurring over time. How you extrapolate that to assume an explosion that destabilized all the core columns I can’t imagine.

Well, I guess that I’ll wait till BBC presents their interview with Barry Jennings. I sure wouldn’t want to be in his shoes right now, if you know what I mean. Looks like we might be seeing another one of those changes in history that Bu$hco is so famous for…G:

I haven’t found it either, but what we will see is the same lies that the nerds on the JREF forum have been spinning.

The BBC was a a good news source before the invasion of Iraq, but has become compliant with the Neocons since the David Kelly story which put Tony Blair on the spot for lying about WMD’s. David Kelly ended up dead, and the head of BBC had to resign, taking two of his reporters with him.

Yep, interesting video, but I never have seen a good job of debunking. The whole idea of truth loses its meaning when considering the whole concept of purposefully disproving something for a corporate entity…G:

What do you think of the video that was just released by Loose Change? I know for sure that the nerds over at JREF won’t like it much, unless, of course, they are being paid to do a whole lot more debunking… 😆

Its amazing to me how the ‘controled demolition’ people most of whom have little or no knowledge or experience or expertise in the building collapse area , just dismiss the reports of the top experts in their fields and take some bird brained radio talk shows babble as gospel. The BBC report utilized the top experts in the field. Shym Sunder the NIST lead investigator, Gene Corley the American Society of Civil Engineers lead investigator both of whom have years and years if engineering experience. Gene Corley who was the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, – which was done by explosives,- said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site.. Him and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene and examining the steel long before Architect Richard Gage listened to some lame brained Professor of Philosophy and had an enlightening experience and from then on knew that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”. ‘That’s the only way that you could have all the exterior columns in Building 7 fail within a fraction of a second’. How do you know all the columns failed at the same moment? The first thing to fail was the east side interior columns as evidenced by the east penthouse roof caving in. Five seconds later the west penthouse caved in and the exterior frame started to descend but there were large belt trusses around the entire building at the 22nd to 24th floors. There could have been columns failing at different times below these belt trusses but the trusses held the upper building steady until a large number of lower columns failed.

These top experts in their fields and have to get everything right in order to maintain their positions. I doubt an inexperienced person could prove them wrong on anything related to the towers collapse without years of study.

“Gene Corley who was the lead investigator in the Oklahoma City disaster, – which was done by explosives,- said there was “no evidence of explosives” at the WTC site.. Him and Johanthan Barnett another experienced Fire Protection Engineer were on the scene and examining the steel long before Architect Richard Gage listened to some lame brained Professor of Philosophy and had an enlightening experience and from then on knew that the buildings “had to be brought down by explosives”

And at the same time Bill Manning was doing everything he could to prevent the steel (evidence) from being removed from the site. Or should I say removed from sight?

While Gene Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers’ blueprints until he signed a wavier that the plans would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency.

Well, as you might have guessed by now, I am what you might call a free thinker, so I don’t have a hypothethis or find a need to develop one. There hasn’t been a valid investigation yet, but lf and when (big IF with this unprecedented bunch of corporate crook$) there is one the evidence we are accumulating can be put ,as Duhhbya would say, on the table. I certainly agree that Gene Corley’s testimony should be part of the investigation, but I wouldn’t say that he is the ultimate authority because of his ties with the corporate government.

The Closure of Ground Zero to Investigators

While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures — the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) — was denied access to the evidence. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation:

* The BPAT did not control the steel. “The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence.”
* FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that “frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse.”
* The BPAT was not granted access to “pertinent building documents.”
* “The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings.”

So anyways, back to the subject, which has been WTC 7, or at least that’s the one that you have done the two reports on. You know, the original and the revised versions. Are either one of these going to be worth a hill of beans, or do we have to wait for a revision of the revision? There is quite a bit of explaining to do in my humble opinion which I’m sure won’t meet your criterion, which would be at least a phd. and political tie$ with people in high office.

Yep, been taking a few myself,otherwise busy working on a yard sale. From the consensus of the people coming to our sale, we need to do everything in our power to remove Bu$hco before he does any more damage. However , several folks said that it’s too late and others mentioned that it will be more of the same regardless of who wins the election. I guess that what it amounts to is that the frogwater is getting pretty hot, and those of who aren’t already cooked are somewhat apothetic, but I didn’t hear one word of support for the Bu$h administration.

BTW: Nothing personal about your comments, I just had to get my two cents in as usual…

You have Mr Scheuerman when you mention the hard physical evidence of Molten Steel, the Thermate signature, the microscopic pulverisation of the concrete and the iron rich microspheres. These are all obvious and damning signs of explosive work. Just keep hammering the guy with this stuff.

It does not matter what unfounded collapse theories Mr Scheuerman or NIST put forth since they have yet to explain these phenomena.

When we have photos and witnesses to yellow/orange hot (900 degree celsius) metal, then we know this material cannot be molten Lead or Aluminium- especially at the low temperatures indicated in Scheuerman’s whitewash. As a fire expert, Arthur will know that lead or aluminium at this temperature is a LIQUID, not plastic as seen in some pictures, and furthermore that this temperature is well above that of the building fires. What we have here is Molten Steel.

Scheuerman’s back up contention is that the metal- if forced to admit that it is steel- may have experienced severe heating in the rubble pile due to air currents acting to fuel underground fires- that a water/hydroden producing effect helped raise the temperature. This is preposterous. We are talking about extreme furnace-like conditions existing under all THREE collapsed buildings requiring substantial amounts of fuel and air. Steel beams do not heat to such levels without a substantial input of energy. The comparison he makes on this matter is simply not credible.

Scheuerman also tends to dismiss the clear evidence provided by the Thermate signature detected by Steven Jones. Wordgeezer, although you have probably seen this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foREyW6LWsI&mode=related&search= please check it out once more. You should view the entire lecture.
Mr Scheuerman argues that the samples here are contaminated, but they are not. When we see that the Thermate signature is evidenced from multiple sources including the iron rich spheres it is clear some high temperature explosive force involving Thermate incendiaries was at work here.

Scheuerman also likes to obfuscate the reports of explosions. A detailed analysis of these reports shows his whitewash on this issue is not to be believed. The destroyed 50 ton machine press in WTC 1, the firefighters and civilians subject to explosive forces in the LOWER LEVELS of the Twin Towers, and Barry Jennings confirmed account of multiple explosion inside WTC7 before any of the towers collapsed, all indicate significant events.

Arthur Scheuerman is a disinformation figure who uses clever, but ultimately bankrupt, arguments in order to trick the public into writing off the science proving 911 WAS an inside job. Thankfully, anyone who is properly informed about the forensic proofs provided by the physical evidence of Molten Steel, the Thermate Signature, the pulverised concrete and iron rich microspheres, will see through his heinous distortions. There is no substitute for the Hard Facts when faced by a mountain of hypothetical disinformation. Thank you.

Yep, we don’t need any theories or hypothesis, physical evidence that you can put your hand on is what counts when a real investigation occurs. Bu$hco will not allow one because this crooked administration has never been held accountable for anything. When the truth is in the light of day and accountability comes into play on any one thing the dominos will begin to fall. There a lot of things that still don’t make sense, but the single most thing that doesn’t is the official government story.

There has been a concerted effort, on the innertubes,
to promote the governments official story about how
building 7 of the World Trade Center came down, so rather than a real investigation we are asked to read the 10,000 pages of the NIST report.

to doubt/dismiss the eyewitness testimony of all the people who saw, heard explosions, including firmen, policemen, etc etc to ignore or dismiss the video evidence of the lobby, having sufferred explosive trauma..

to ignore forensice evidence of military grade active thermitic material… the fact that the measured volume of the pyroclastic like clouds would have required 3 times as much energy as would have been available from collapse alone…

to suggest that it is even possible for a building to fall at freefall acceleration through the path of most resistance, without the aid of explosives..

is pretty damn stupid.. but it can be forgiven if youre either
a) a retired senile firefighter..
b) a lying gormless shill
c) devoid of a functioning frontal lobe..

DISCLAIMER:
The Suzie-Q blog is owned, authorized, and operated by Suzie-Q. Comments or Guest articles posted by individuals on this blog are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Suzie-Q. Any endorsement of any comments or guest articles posted herein is neither implied nor suggested.
Differing opinions are welcome, personal attacks will not be tolerated and those engaging in personal attacks will be banned.
We will delete those comments that include the following actions:
• are abusive, off-topic, use excessive foul language
• contain racist, sexist, homophobic and other slurs
• are solicitations and/or advertising for personal blogs and websites
• are posted with the explicit intention of provoking other commenters on this blog.